LDS worship

[Jerusha]

And, going further to its natural conclusion, why trust the Book of Mormon?

If I would go to the effort of counting, I suspect that I could come up with about a hundred places where the BoM contradicts/condemns Mormonism.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

You are trying to shift the issue from Mormons vowing to kill and be killed.

There’s nothing to shift from, as we don’t.

My beliefs do not include vows to kill and be killed.

Again, nor do mine.

That does not mean he was not a Catholic Priest.

Doesn’t mean he was either.
I could dress up as a Catholic priest if I wanted, wouldn’t make me one, or make my actions at all endorsed by the Catholic church.

Not true. Go back to when BY said those things. He A PROPHET said it was doctrine and it was accepted as such. Are you now saying BY was a false prophet?

You’re insisting on applying a Catholic ‘ex cathedra’ stance to something completely different. Not everything a prophet says is doctrine, not everything is always correct: they’re only human after all, not infallible.
While I am sure President Young was absolutely confident in what he said, that he had pondered it, considered it and felt he had good reason and reference to back it up; I cannot say for certain if it was revelation or simply personal opinion. If it were the former, nothing further has ever been provided to expand further on exactly what it means; if the latter, it makes little difference to how we ought to live our life or the respect & reverence we show to our God.

It is a moral question. Christian morality is based on the ten commandments. “Thou shalt not kill”. It is kind of hard to imagine a ritual where one vows to kill at least two people, oneself and whoever these secret ritual are exposed, comes from God.

As to your “do anything Christ asks of you”…one should discern whether or not instruction is coming from God, or not. Jesus commands us to love one another, to lay down our lives for others with love…so, what do you think a ritual that defies this commandments can possibly mean for a Christian?

This might apply, if the ritual in question actually existed.
The temple ceremony merely builds in more detail union the exact same covenants we make at Baptism: to follow Christ and do whatever things he asks of us.

Then what use is Brigham Young or any other “leader” of the Mormon Church? Seems to be an odd sort of hierarchy, at best…

“Yeah, they’re prophets of our church, but it doesn’t matter how many times they say something, doesn’t make it taught or accepted doctrine…”

Especially when Brigham himself claimed it doctrine. Seems Mormon Cultist (and mot other Mormons) consider BY a false prophet.

A prophet’s calling is to lead the church. Until such time as we need and are prepared for something new, we won’t get it. So unfortunately for many of us, and for all the prophets in the meantime, their job comes down to finding new ways to remind everyone to do the same things over and over.
That’s not to say they don’t still receive revelations: callings of general authorities & missionaries, building of new temples, the reduced size temples, small branch programme etc. None of the constitute doctrinal changes or additions, but very important revelations nonetheless.

I haven’t met a Mormon yet who can tell me what is being taught by their current leaders, which they are choosing to ignore because it isn’t doctrine. Someone 50 years from now will say, that was Monson’s opinion! Just ignore it.

Mormons who lived at the time of BY, didn’t view his teachings as opinion. As BY himself did not either.

I’d suggest this has more to do with the increased realisation of the way their words are used, twisted, misquoted and thrown back against the church if the slightest thing appears out of place. Especially since Gordon B. Hinckley church leaders have been increasingly aware of the importance & effect of the media in a way that Brigham Young could never have imagined when he made the statement in question.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’d suggest this has more to do with the increased realisation of the way their words are used, twisted, misquoted and thrown back against the church if the slightest thing appears out of place. Especially since Gordon B. Hinckley church leaders have been increasingly aware of the importance & effect of the media in a way that Brigham Young could never have imagined when he made the statement in question.

PR?

How do you know Gordon B. Hinckley wasn’t just giving his opinion?

 

[TexanKnight]

There’s nothing to shift from, as we don’t.

Well, since you shifted, I would disagree

Again, nor do mine.

I am glad you do not subscribe to the LDS Blood vows. And I am glad they have taken it out of the temple ceremony (though if really from God, I guess the LDS God made a mistake when he inserted it)

Doesn’t mean he was either.
I could dress up as a Catholic priest if I wanted, wouldn’t make me one, or make my actions at all endorsed by the Catholic church.

Red Herring. It dies not matter that the Catholic Church obviously would not sanction. But, the guy was dressed as a catholic priest and he was shown to be an agent of Satan. The point was made. The LDS Church wanted to make a point and they did

You’re insisting on applying a Catholic ‘ex cathedra’ stance to something completely different. Not everything a prophet says is doctrine, not everything is always correct: they’re only human after all, not infallible.

Wrong. BY himself said it was doctrine. Are you now saying he was lying? And IF, as LDS prophets have indicated, LDS prophets talk to God, wouldn’t that mean they would not err when discussing the God they speak to? So, either he was a prophet, or he wasn’t. Since he CLAIMED it to be doctrine, then he was a liar or a false prophet. Or both.

This might apply, if the ritual in question actually existed.

It did. You know it.

A prophet’s calling is to lead the church. Until such time as we need and are prepared for something new, we won’t get it. So unfortunately for many of us, and for all the prophets in the meantime, their job comes down to finding new ways to remind everyone to do the same things over and over.
That’s not to say they don’t still receive revelations: callings of general authorities & missionaries, building of new temples, the reduced size temples, small branch programme etc. None of the constitute doctrinal changes or additions, but very important revelations nonetheless.

That was a lot of “not much” to dodge the issue about an alleged prophet lying (according to you) about doctrine and confusing people with false doctrine (something a true prophet would never do)

I’d suggest this has more to do with the increased realisation of the way their words are used, twisted, misquoted and thrown back against the church if the slightest thing appears out of place. Especially since Gordon B. Hinckley church leaders have been increasingly aware of the importance & effect of the media in a way that Brigham Young could never have imagined when he made the statement in question.

Yet you cannot point to a single thing that has been twisted or misquoted. You attempt to belittle the posters by hinting they are twisting and misquoting without a single shred of evidence.

 

[TexanKnight]

PR?

How do you know Gordon B. Hinckley wasn’t just giving his opinion?

That is easy: If Mormons like what he said, it is doctrine. If it turns out to be disproven or shown to be ridiculous, it was just opinion.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That is easy: If Mormons like what he said, it is doctrine. If it turns out to be disproven or shown to be ridiculous, it was just opinion.

PR.

 

[HonoraDominum]

A prophet’s calling is to lead the church. Until such time as we need and are prepared for something new, we won’t get it. So unfortunately for many of us, and for all the prophets in the meantime, their job comes down to finding new ways to remind everyone to do the same things over and over.

That’s not to say they don’t still receive revelations: callings of general authorities & missionaries, building of new temples, the reduced size temples, small branch programme etc. None of the constitute doctrinal changes or additions, but very important revelations nonetheless.

I’d suggest this has more to do with the increased realisation of the way their words are used, twisted, misquoted and thrown back against the church if the slightest thing appears out of place. Especially since Gordon B. Hinckley church leaders have been increasingly aware of the importance & effect of the media in a way that Brigham Young could never have imagined when he made the statement in question.

What you are failing to address is the fundamental issue that TexanKnight, RebeccaJ and other ex-Mo Catholic never stop addressing: Joseph Smith claimed to be called from God. Brigham Young claimed to be his successor. And yet the Mormon church cherry picks the “good” revalation from the “bad” as the tides change, which has caused multiple doctrinal changes over the course of Mormon history.

This is not an issue of whether Brigham Young or Joseph Smith were bad men. This is an issue of doctrine. Has there been bad leadership in the Catholic Church? Absolutely. This has happened from the beginnings of the church (Judas’s betrayal) and continues to this day (the priest crisis in the church). However, no matter how many failings have happened in the leadership of the Catholic church, the core essentials of the doctrine and the requirements for salvation have never changed, not in 2000 years. This is most definitely not the case with the Mormon religion.

When temple ceremonies first started, they were introduced with the precept of plural marriage not only being allowed, but essential for salvation, or in Mormon terms, the highest level of Celestial glory and exaltation. Brigham Young stated:

“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266).
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).

The nature of the Mass has never changed - it has remained to this day a representation of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary and the celebration of the Eucharist as presented by Christ at the Last Supper. The nature of matrimony, of confession, of baptism, has never changed. But the nature of the Temple ceremonies has changed considerably since their inception. Doctrines that were once taught as essential for salvation are no longer taught.

And here’s where the ex-Mos get so tweaked out: the justification is that modern revalation trumps previous revelation, modern prophets trump founding prophets. This shift causes doctrinal changes, and changes in the precepts of the Gospel as taught by the LDS church and changes the requirements for salvation.

The Catholics respond that Christ does not change. The Gospel taught by Christ and by those he called to lead His church does not change. The requirements for salvation do not change. A Catholic’s life comes down to one moment - dying a holy death in a state of sanctifying grace (free of mortal sin, and in friendship with God). Everything else is moot if a person does not die a holy death. To die a holy death, the Catholic church has given many sacraments that help achieve this goal, such as baptism, confirmation, confession, and the Eucharist. The nature of these sacraments have not changed and will never change.

 

[Lochias]

You’re insisting on applying a Catholic ‘ex cathedra’ stance to something completely different. Not everything a prophet says is doctrine, not everything is always correct: they’re only human after all, not infallible.
While I am sure President Young was absolutely confident in what he said, that he had pondered it, considered it and felt he had good reason and reference to back it up; I cannot say for certain if it was revelation or simply personal opinion. If it were the former, nothing further has ever been provided to expand further on exactly what it means; if the latter, it makes little difference to how we ought to live our life or the respect & reverence we show to our God.

A prophet’s calling is to lead the church. Until such time as we need and are prepared for something new, we won’t get it. So unfortunately for many of us, and for all the prophets in the meantime, their job comes down to finding new ways to remind everyone to do the same things over and over.
That’s not to say they don’t still receive revelations: callings of general authorities & missionaries, building of new temples, the reduced size temples, small branch programme etc. None of the constitute doctrinal changes or additions, but very important revelations nonetheless.

I’d suggest this has more to do with the increased realisation of the way their words are used, twisted, misquoted and thrown back against the church if the slightest thing appears out of place. Especially since Gordon B. Hinckley church leaders have been increasingly aware of the importance & effect of the media in a way that Brigham Young could never have imagined when he made the statement in question.

…wow. Just…wow. Well, best no to trust anything your books or prophets say, then, lest what they have to say now suddenly becomes completely and utterly irrelevant ten years down the line.

Really, what you’re saying is that you follow what you want, when you want, how you want to follow it…makes me wonder why you guys pay money to your church at all. I’d say you’re being taken for the ride of your lives. You can go home and do what you want for free!

 

[TexanKnight]

Worse, how can a person be a true prophet of God if everything they say can be voted down by the members?

Or ignored a few years later.

Or whitewashed 20 years later

Or denied 40 years later…

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

How do you know Gordon B. Hinckley wasn’t just giving his opinion?

About what, specifically?

Wrong. BY himself said it was doctrine. Are you now saying he was lying? And IF, as LDS prophets have indicated, LDS prophets talk to God, wouldn’t that mean they would not err when discussing the God they speak to? So, either he was a prophet, or he wasn’t. Since he CLAIMED it to be doctrine, then he was a liar or a false prophet. Or both.

Brigham Young, or any other church leader alone claiming something as doctrine does not make it a doctrine of the church any more than if I said it. It represents his own personal opinion or belief on the subject, about which we have no further information. This does not make him either a liar or a false prophet, it simply makes him a man: fallible and mortal just like the rest of us, and just like every prophet sent from God since the days of Adam.
It may be that his background caused him to believe that his position as prophet and leader of the church would mean God would direct his every thought, causing everything he personally believed to be the truth. Check your Bible, prophetic infallibility is far from backed up throughout its pages.

That was a lot of “not much” to dodge the issue about an alleged prophet lying (according to you) about doctrine and confusing people with false doctrine (something a true prophet would never do)

Many Old Testament prophets prophecied about things, which never did come about. Jonah, for example, preaching to Nineveh, told them their city would be overthrown. He stated simply that, without caveat; yet when the people changed their ways, the foretold doom did not come about.
Presumably, therefore, you can’t accept Jonah as a prophet, throwing every word of the Bible into question?

Yet you cannot point to a single thing that has been twisted or misquoted. You attempt to belittle the posters by hinting they are twisting and misquoting without a single shred of evidence.*

I didn’t claim that any poster had done this, it was a general point that general authorities of the church are much more aware that their words are taken and used elsewhere more easily and more commonly than at any other time. Being aware of this, they are understandably more cautious to be certain of what they say.

What you are failing to address is the fundamental issue that … the Mormon church cherry picks the “good” revalation from the “bad” as the tides change, which has caused multiple doctrinal changes over the course of Mormon history.

Except that we don’t, and it hasn’t.
Not every utterance by a prophet of the Lord is a revelation, nor is it doctrine. “A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”, said Joseph Smith, and how true it is. Every prophet the Lord ever sent was a normal person, with a life to lead in tandem with their divine calling, with their own background, understanding and talents. While God can enlarge the capabilities of any man, He cannot force anything upon him, whether it be knowledge, understanding or any thing. Prophets, therefore, don’t always get it right, and the Bible is full of instances where this is clearly shown.

However, no matter how many failings have happened in the leadership of the Catholic church, the core essentials of the doctrine and the requirements for salvation have never changed, not in 2000 years. This is most definitely not the case with the Mormon religion.

Certainly there have been *additions\I] to our understanding of God’s laws, but not one doctrine of the church, or one statute laid down as essential to the creators plan has been rescinded.

When temple ceremonies first started, they were introduced with the precept of plural marriage not only being allowed, but essential for salvation, or in Mormon terms, the highest level of Celestial glory and exaltation. Brigham Young stated:

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned

," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266).*
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).

Now show me where this was formally ratified, collectively, by the general leadership of the church, and added into the official doctrines of the church. You will never find it, because it never happened; all you have are words from a collection of sermons. I have no doubt that Brigham Young believed that, however he was clearly mistaken about it being essential to salvation. *However, the self-same ordinance and priesthood power are employed in temple sealings both monogamous and polygamous: and entering into that covenant *is\I] essential. So he wasn’t all wrong.

The nature of the Mass has never changed - it has remained to this day a representation of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary and the celebration of the Eucharist as presented by Christ at the Last Supper. The nature of matrimony, of confession, of baptism, has never changed. But the nature of the Temple ceremonies has changed considerably since their inception. Doctrines that were once taught as essential for salvation are no longer taught.*

Something that ‘ex-Mos’ should already know, and Catholics wanting to use this as an argument need to realise, is that the nature of the Temple ceremony, the truths it contains and it’s purpose have never changed; although the format may have seen alterations (certainly video didn’t exist for Joseph Smith for example; I believe the Salt Lake Temple still uses actors live). This also ties in with accusations of theft from freemasonry. A major purpose of the ceremony is to teach those participating, and the methods used to do this may have changed over the years: but the things being taught have not.

And here’s where the ex-Mos get so tweaked out: the justification is that modern revalation trumps previous revelation, modern prophets trump founding prophets. This shift causes doctrinal changes, and changes in the precepts of the Gospel as taught by the LDS church and changes the requirements for salvation.*

The revelation to Peter about eating ‘unclean’ foods trumped Moses’ revelation not to.
The revelation to Peter about taking the gospel to all the world, not just the Jews trumped even the Saviour Himself’s statement.
Your point?
I’m assuming you don’t require your women to be considered ‘unclean’ for that one week a month? Are you clothes just cotton, or do you have a polyester blend? Many atheists could continue that list much longer than I could.
The fact is that the requirements for salvation are always the same, but the specifics of how we go about that while the world around us shifts and changes with every whim do change. The only way to remain steadfast is to have that direct guidance from the Lord that only a prophet can give.*

 

[Lochias]

Brigham Young, or any other church leader alone claiming something as doctrine does not make it a doctrine of the church any more than if I said it. It represents his own personal opinion or belief on the subject, about which we have no further information. This does not make him either a liar or a false prophet, it simply makes him a man: fallible and mortal just like the rest of us, and just like every prophet sent from God since the days of Adam.
It may be that his background caused him to believe that his position as prophet and leader of the church would mean God would direct his every thought, causing everything he personally believed to be the truth. Check your Bible, prophetic infallibility is far from backed up throughout its pages.

Except that we don’t, and it hasn’t.
Not every utterance by a prophet of the Lord is a revelation, nor is it doctrine. “A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”, said Joseph Smith, and how true it is. Every prophet the Lord ever sent was a normal person, with a life to lead in tandem with their divine calling, with their own background, understanding and talents. While God can enlarge the capabilities of any man, He cannot force anything upon him, whether it be knowledge, understanding or any thing. Prophets, therefore, don’t always get it right, and the Bible is full of instances where this is clearly shown.

My goodness. Well. If you can’t count on the leaders and founders of your own church, I can’t really say I can ever take anything a Mormon says in defense of their faith very seriously, ever again. I’ll surely point them to this thread, if they ask why. Thankee much.

 

[twopekinguys]

So, let me get this straight.

A mormon prophet preaches something from the pulpit, and it doesn’t have to be doctrrine? If it isn’t doctrinal, isn’t it heresy?

BY preached about blacks not getting the priesthood, yet according to many mormons, it was never considered doctrine. So he was preaching a heresy? Can any mormon show where it was brought of for ratification, or a sustaining vote and turned down?

If he was preaching a heresy, why was it recorded, and kept in the journal of discourses? Is it to teach heresy, or is it to teach doctrine? If it is neither, why isn’t it just recorded in the churches history, and left at that?

At what point did the mormon church decide that things a mormon prophet says/preaches have to be ratified, or receive a sustaining vote?

I don’t think JS had a sustatining vote on polygamy. If it was, can you show me where it was put before the elders/pew members and “sustained”.

You can’t have it both ways you know.

Just point us to a source that shows when the policy/procedure of “sustaining” a teaching came about, and how it applies to teachings prior to that time.

I don’t think it can be done. No mormon has been able to provide that before, and I have asked the question multiple times.

 

[TexanKnight]

Brigham Young, or any other church leader alone claiming something as doctrine does not make it a doctrine of the church any more than if I said it.

Really? So you are on the same level as a prophet? So then, you are saying all Mormons are equal to prophets? I have watched General Conference and I sure get a different opinion.

But I am glad you have admitted Brigham Young was dishonest.

It represents his own personal opinion or belief on the subject, about which we have no further information.

Wrong. It ceases to be opinion when he says “This is Doctrine!”

This does not make him either a liar or a false prophet, it simply makes him a man:

Wrong. If he says it is doctrine and it is not…that was a lie. And therefore, a false prophet.

fallible and mortal just like the rest of us, and just like every prophet sent from God since the days of Adam.

Red Herring. Can you name a single prophet from the Bible who went around saying something was doctrine when it really wasn’t?

Many Old Testament prophets prophecied about things, which never did come about. Jonah, for example, preaching to Nineveh, told them their city would be overthrown. He stated simply that, without caveat; yet when the people changed their ways, the foretold doom did not come about.
Presumably, therefore, you can’t accept Jonah as a prophet, throwing every word of the Bible into question?

Another horrible example. When Jonah preached that he was DISOBEYING GOD. There is nothing in the LDS Record that says God told BY something and BY taught something different. That is yet another bad analogy.

I didn’t claim that any poster had done this, it was a general point that general authorities of the church are much more aware that their words are taken and used elsewhere more easily and more commonly than at any other time. Being aware of this, they are understandably more cautious to be certain of what they say.

Thank you for admitting I have not twisted or misrepresented anything.

 

[TexanKnight]

My goodness. Well. If you can’t count on the leaders and founders of your own church, I can’t really say I can ever take anything a Mormon says in defense of their faith very seriously, ever again. I’ll surely point them to this thread, if they ask why. Thankee much.

Yep…apparently, even when the prophet says it is doctrine from God, the people can reject it…and, by extension, God.

 

[HonoraDominum]

HonoraDominum:

What you are failing to address is the fundamental issue that TexanKnight, RebeccaJ and other ex-Mo Catholic never stop addressing: Joseph Smith claimed to be called from God. Brigham Young claimed to be his successor. And yet the Mormon church cherry picks the “good” revalation from the “bad” as the tides change, which has caused multiple doctrinal changes over the course of Mormon history.

Except that we don’t, and it hasn’t.

Not every utterance by a prophet of the Lord is a revelation, nor is it doctrine. “A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”, said Joseph Smith, and how true it is. Every prophet the Lord ever sent was a normal person, with a life to lead in tandem with their divine calling, with their own background, understanding and talents. While God can enlarge the capabilities of any man, He cannot force anything upon him, whether it be knowledge, understanding or any thing. Prophets, therefore, don’t always get it right, and the Bible is full of instances where this is clearly shown.

How do examples, or “types”, of mistakes made by prophets in the bible change the fact that Brigham Young was a fraud? Not every utterance by a prophet of the Lord is a revelation, but when one prophet says that polygamy is essential for the highest level of salvation, that’s not a metaphor or a symbol. You base your entire religion on the words of prophets, and yet their words only count as long as the current leader feels them necessary to do so.

HonoraDominum:

However, no matter how many failings have happened in the leadership of the Catholic church, the core essentials of the doctrine and the requirements for salvation have never changed, not in 2000 years. This is most definitely not the case with the Mormon religion.

Certainly there have been additions to our understanding of God’s laws, but not one doctrine of the church, or one statute laid down as essential to the creators plan has been rescinded.

HonoraDominum:

When temple ceremonies first started, they were introduced with the precept of plural marriage not only being allowed, but essential for salvation, or in Mormon terms, the highest level of Celestial glory and exaltation. Brigham Young stated:
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned

," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266).*
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).

Now show me where this was formally ratified, collectively, by the general leadership of the church, and added into the official doctrines of the church. You will never find it, because it never happened; all you have are words from a collection of sermons. I have no doubt that Brigham Young believed that, however he was clearly mistaken about it being essential to salvation. However, the self-same ordinance and priesthood power are employed in temple sealings both monogamous and polygamous: and entering into that covenant is\I] essential. So he wasn’t all wrong.

Really? Really!? How about this one:

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

…

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

**Parenthetical sidenote: **Mormon Scripture states that not only can a man “have” ten virgins, but to do so is the “work of my Father continued”. This is not cut and paste. This is canon scripture for Mormons.

The scripture above is in the D&C, the one I’m sure you have in your house. This says that the “great and everlasting covenant”, which if you read all of 132 is clearly plural marriage, is essential for salvation. Not “If you would like to do this, it is accepted.” “if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned”. This is canon scripture. There is not one word said in the bible after Jesus that Catholics go, “Well, that’s old Bible stuff, we listen to popes now!” Well, except for head coverings, and that’s a whole other discussion for another thread.

Remember what Christ said about abiding in him? “Abide” a pretty serious word if you’re familiar with the Bible at all:

[BIBLEDRB]John 15:6[/BIBLEDRB]

This is what Brigham Young was referring to in the quotes provided earlier. The Almighty GOD, creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen, dicated to Joseph Smith that polygamy is not only essential, but required of salvation. And then a few years later someone said oops, my bad, laws won’t allow it.

Let’s compare this to the way that Catholics meet opposition to their doctrine, shall we? Catholics died and continue to die for their beliefs. But Mormon leaderships rolled over as soon as the US government threatened them.

Why? **Because false beliefs are not worth dying for. **

 

[twopekinguys]

Let’s compare this to the way that Catholics meet opposition to their doctrine, shall we? Catholics died and continue to die for their beliefs. But Mormon leaderships rolled over as soon as the US government threatened them.

Why? **Because false beliefs are not worth dying for. **

Or they run from the law.

I found this interesting tidbit about Heber Grant on Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heber_J._Grant

n 1889, to avoid being forced to testify in pending unlawful cohabitation charges against her husband, Emily went to Manassa, Colorado where she stayed for a year-and-a-half. Grant accompanied her on the train-ride there from Pueblo to Manassa, having been on a different train on the previous part of the journey to avoid arrest. Grant stayed two weeks, setting up for Emily the most comfortable house in the town, and leaving his mother to help Emily.

It is interesting to note that he married his plural wife Emily in 1884. Two years after the Edmunds act of 1882, which outlawed polygamy.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

Really? So you are on the same level as a prophet? So then, you are saying all Mormons are equal to prophets? I have watched General Conference and I sure get a different opinion.

That makes no sense and isn’t what I said at all. And you know it.

Wrong. It ceases to be opinion when he says “This is Doctrine!”

No it doesn’t. It just means that his opinion was that it wasn’t an opinion. Without formal acceptance by the general leadership of the church, his statements are no more doctrine than anyone else’s.

Wrong. If he says it is doctrine and it is not…that was a lie. And therefore, a false prophet.

The slightest wrong word, and that completely ruins any leader’s credibility? And clearly an outright lie is worse.
I’d watch out with your argument, as you’re putting the entire Catholic church on shaky ground too with this one. Or would you like to claim that Peter didn’t lie and deny he knew Jesus Christ when asked directly? And three times too!
And while I’m sure you don’t revere him as a prophet, he certainly did make claim to receive revelations: unclean food, and the preaching of the gospel to Gentiles.

Red Herring. Can you name a single prophet from the Bible who went around saying something was doctrine when it really wasn’t?.. When Jonah preached that he was DISOBEYING GOD. There is nothing in the LDS Record that says God told BY something and BY taught something different. That is yet another bad analogy.

I’d check your story. Jonah disobeyed God when he tried to run away from Ninevah, but God had told him to preach against the city. Jonah 3:10 clearly says that because the people changed their ways, God chose not to do the ‘evil that he had said that he would do into them’.
Clearly, then, by your yardstick Jonah was a false prophet because the thing he prophecied about never happened.

How do examples, or “types”, of mistakes made by prophets in the bible change the fact that Brigham Young was a fraud?

He wasn’t.
But the point is that the arguments being aimed against him would also cause prophets throughout the Bible to be rejected if the same standard were applied.

Not every utterance by a prophet of the Lord is a revelation, but when one prophet says that polygamy is essential for the highest level of salvation, that’s not a metaphor or a symbol.

No, but it is an opinion. Even if the individual doesn’t think it is, even if they believe they are entirely correct and justified in saying it, and even if they are the prophet of the Lord, a statement not formally ratified by the general church leadership does not constitute an official doctrine of the church. In your language it ‘isn’t binding’.

You base your entire religion on the words of prophets, and yet their words only count as long as the current leader feels them necessary to do so.

Show me an accepted doctrine that was repealed by a later leader?

Really? Really!? How about this one:

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

…

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

**Parenthetical sidenote: **Mormon Scripture states that not only can a man “have” ten virgins, but to do so is the “work of my Father continued”. This is not cut and paste. This is canon scripture for Mormons.

The scripture above is in the D&C, the one I’m sure you have in your house. This says that the “great and everlasting covenant”, which if you read all of 132 is clearly plural marriage, is essential for salvation. Not “If you would like to do this, it is accepted.” “if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned”. This is canon scripture.

This is what Brigham Young was referring to in the quotes provided earlier. The Almighty GOD, creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen, dicated to Joseph Smith that polygamy is not only essential, but required of salvation. And then a few years later someone said oops, my bad, laws won’t allow it.

Certainly Brigham Young claimed it to be essential, and I have no doubt that he believed what he was saying, but he was mistaken, and I can see how he could be.
The scriptures you quote relate not to plural marriage directly, but to the temple sealing ceremony. (In the US this ceremony is the only wedding that LDS generally have, because it is accepted by the state as lawful, elsewhere we must have a legal marriage first, then enter the temple to be sealed for time and all eternity). It is this sealing ordinance that is essential to salvation in the highest degree of Glory we can attain. The very same ordinance can be performed to seal more than one woman to a man, according to the word of God as in the scriptures you quote. This, I suspect, is where the confusion lies because the ordinance is essential, but only essential the first time.

 

[TexanKnight]

That makes no sense and isn’t what I said at all. And you know it.

Nope. You DID say it. You said YOU could decide to accept what a prophet says as good or bad. That means YOU are his equal. YOU KNOW IT

No it doesn’t. It just means that his opinion was that it wasn’t an opinion. Without formal acceptance by the general leadership of the church, his statements are no more doctrine than anyone else’s.

Then you have admitted he is not a prophet. If God tells a prophet something and the prophet says it is doctrine, then it is doctrine. If the people can reject it, then either they are rejecting God or they are agreeing he is a false prophet. You have just admitted your prophets are not prophets, but guys who have ideas that they bring to a vote.

The slightest wrong word, and that completely ruins any leader’s credibility? And clearly an outright lie is worse.
I’d watch out with your argument, as you’re putting the entire Catholic church on shaky ground too with this one. Or would you like to claim that Peter didn’t lie and deny he knew Jesus Christ when asked directly? And three times too!
And while I’m sure you don’t revere him as a prophet, he certainly did make claim to receive revelations: unclean food, and the preaching of the gospel to Gentiles.

Wrong again, and ANOTHER red herring. We NEVER claim that Popes are prophets. IF your prophet claims something is doctrine and it is NOT doctrine…then he has lied. He is a false prophet. End of story.

I’d check your story. Jonah disobeyed God when he tried to run away from Ninevah, but God had told him to preach against the city. Jonah 3:10 clearly says that because the people changed their ways, God chose not to do the ‘evil that he had said that he would do into them’.
Clearly, then, by your yardstick Jonah was a false prophet because the thing he prophecied about never happened.

Again, red herring. God told him what to say. it was a warning. God then TOLD Jonah He changed His mind, so it was NOT a false prophesy. Are you saying, by comparison, that God told BY that Adam was God and then later changed His mind? That is too humorous! Thanks for the laugh. Your red herring arguments certainly are a stretch!

He wasn’t.
But the point is that the arguments being aimed against him would also cause prophets throughout the Bible to be rejected if the same standard were applied.

Actually, he was. He is a guy who claimed doctrine that you now say he lied about.

No, but it is an opinion. Even if the individual doesn’t think it is, even if they believe they are entirely correct and justified in saying it, and even if they are the prophet of the Lord, a statement not formally ratified by the general church leadership does not constitute an official doctrine of the church. In your language it ‘isn’t binding’.

Wrong. BY did not say “THIS IS OPINION”. He said “THIS IS DOCTRINE”. So, either it is doctrine, or he lied. You cannot whitewash this one.

 

[HonoraDominum]

Certainly Brigham Young claimed it to be essential, and I have no doubt that he believed what he was saying, but he was mistaken, and I can see how he could be.

The scriptures you quote relate not to plural marriage directly, but to the temple sealing ceremony. (In the US this ceremony is the only wedding that LDS generally have, because it is accepted by the state as lawful, elsewhere we must have a legal marriage first, then enter the temple to be sealed for time and all eternity). It is this sealing ordinance that is essential to salvation in the highest degree of Glory we can attain. The very same ordinance can be performed to seal more than one woman to a man, according to the word of God as in the scriptures you quote. This, I suspect, is where the confusion lies because the ordinance is essential, but only essential the first time.

No. No. No. No. NO NO NO NO NO!! Anyone with any knowledge of the English language, when reading D&C 132, can clearly see that the “new and everlasting covenant” is PLURAL MARRIAGE. Period. End of sentence, close the book. Here’s more of the scriptures for those following this discussion who have not read the Doctrine & Covenants (revelation “given” to Joseph Smith and canonized in LDS scripture). Keep a very close watch for the word “abide”, which if you remember my earlier discussion, does not mean “support and accept” but means “lives in” when used by God the Father and God the Son. I’ll unpack and emphasize as needed.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

Okay, let’s read this. “God” is saying, you asked about how all of these old testament prophets had many wives.

2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

“God” at this point is saying, since you asked, I’m going to make a new covenant with you. And if you don’t do this, you will be damned, i.e., not saved, i.e., you are not following commandments if this law is not followed. NO ONE can reject this covenant and go to heaven.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

God says again, for the second time, that whoever does not abide in this law shall be damned. He’s said it twice. This is serious stuff at this point. Now, what is this law? He has yet to clarify it at this point.

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is eanointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the ikeys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

9 Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?

10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not aappointed?

11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?

12 I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.

13 And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall bnot remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.

These lines are establishing the authority of “God”, and the authority of the priesthood given to Joseph. Understandable, this is obviously a pretty serious covenant “God” is making.

15 Therefore, if a a\man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Okay, with him so far, saying if you don’t marry then you don’t get to go to the highest glory in Heaven. Still not terribly true, but understandable. I remember being taught about how if a person doesn’t get sealed in the temple that they become “angels” in the second level of heaven and serve the ones in the first level, the people who got married in the temple and lived up to their covenants. I’m with you so far

[to be continued …]

 

[HonoraDominum]

Verses 18-27 talk about temple marriage, and that’s all fine and good, so let’s just skip ahead to the good stuff, shall we?

28 I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.

29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

37 **Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; **as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

40 I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things. Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.

Okay, so let’s break this down:

• God gave Abraham commandments.
• God gave Abraham commandments about his “seed”.
• Joseph is to have these same commandments.
• God told Sarah to give Abraham another wife.
• In taking another wife, Abraham did not sin because taking another wife was the law.
• Follow the law of Abraham or you cannot enter heaven.
• David and Isaac and Jacob and Solomon and Moses all followed this commandment and they were exalted.
• “God” tells Joseph to “restore all things.”

How, pray tell, can this mean ANYTHING other than Joseph is to restore polygamy and that polygamy, not simply temple marriage, is the “new and everlasting” covenant? How can this be interpreted as anything but polygamy is a requirement for the highest level of heaven?!?!