LDS worship

[TexanKnight]

We don’t dismiss prophecy. But we also don’t simply accept unsupported, uncorroborated statements as doctrine.
So to give me something to refute, you first need firm evidence of what God actually said to Brigman Young,

We have firm evidence. The eye-witness testimony of Brigham Young. He told us what God told him when he called it, as a prophet, doctrine. That is the best evidence. So, you are left with accepting what he said, or calling him a liar. You have chosen to accept he was not telling the truth about doctrine. That makes him a false prophet

and then we can discuss what he conveyed to the church in light of that. Until you can tell me what God actually said, there’s nothing to discuss.

Wrong. There is nothing left for YOU to discuss that helps you. The facts are still there. BY, as a prophet, pronounced doctrine. You reject him as a prophet by not accepting what he has proclaimed.

Your problem is that Brigham Young appears to consider his statements simply restating what he considers to be already accepted doctrine, he doesn’t claim anything new.

Really? So you always considered Adam your God?

The other issue is that not adhering to a command from God (e.g. Polygamy for those to who He commands it) is enough to keep a person from the Celestial Kingdom. In which sense, Brigham Young was correct.

Ah…I like it when you get to pick and choose what to accept from prophets. It makes it easier to live your life the way YOU want instead of the way God wants.

Except that He did, go check your facts.

Actually, he didn’t. When the LDS faced a ton of scrutiny and the loss of money, the LDS God made his “I had it wrong, Black can hold it after all.”

 

[zaffiroborant]

The difference in language between the usually seen ‘cast lots’ compared to ‘gave forth’ suggests to me that it wasn’t exactly the same process; but still an attempt to discern the will of God. Whatever the method, they did it together, and all accepted the result; the main pont of what I said.

It seems you originally brought up the situation with Matthias to show how doctrine is voted on in the LDS church, suggesting that voting was done in the choice of Matthias. There is no indication of voting in the text and certainly no doctrine presented for vote so the questions posed by Twopekinguys still stand unanswered.

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.

 

[Lochias]

We don’t dismiss prophecy.

Bull-****.

But we also don’t simply accept unsupported, uncorroborated statements as doctrine.

And yet you’ve made no mention on how you support and corroborate said statements…so, you can apparently dismiss anything that you, yourself, don’t agree with.

So to give me something to refute, you first need firm evidence of what God actually said to Brigman Young, and then we can discuss what he conveyed to the church in light of that. Until you can tell me what God actually said, there’s nothing to discuss.

Wow. Well, until someone else can tell me what God has actually said to you, I guess I can’t take anything you say about the Mormon faith very seriously, either. Live by the sword…

Your problem is that Brigham Young appears to consider his statements simply restating what he considers to be already accepted doctrine, he doesn’t claim anything new.
The other issue is that not adhering to a command from God (e.g. Polygamy for those to who He commands it) is enough to keep a person from the Celestial Kingdom. In which sense, Brigham Young was correct.

Ah, but until you can tell me exactly what God said to those who received those commands, we have nothing to talk about. Until then, anything the Mormon church tries to decree as a command from God is really just an opinion…all by your own admission, of course. :tiphat:

 

[KathleenGee]

Mormon Cultist…

I really have to take stance against you saying the Church spends its time denouncing…

The entire construct of Mormonism regarding a moronic angel appearing to Smith 1800 years after a failed mission of Christ…to restore the ‘church’…because the great Roman Church and its daughters were an abomination with corrupt doctrine…is false, something akin to early American folklore…I studied early American literature for several academic quarters in a secular university.

Every other Christian’s faith is an abomination. That is your construct…you don’t fold your hands in prayer like other people universally dto, including Shinto and Buddhist…because you don’t want to look like the Gentile Christians…us. ‘I am so good, I don’t want to look like Those people…’

The construct of the Catholic Church is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, His defeat over sin and death…and time…He came at the appropriate time as was the choosing of His Apostles…Jesus Who is our justification and our life…and our Temple.

Our Church is above from knocking other beliefs down. It is inappropriate in our places of belief because it is of the spirit of man, not Christ. Christ is our Savior and Redeemer…He is our all, so why do we have to knock other faiths down as believers???

We are simply reacting to Mormonism, its construct, its distortion and contradiction of Sacred Scripture, and its adversarial, now however veiled, against our Catholic Faith…

We know it was a great triumph on your church’s part to have a temple built in the outskirts of Rome, where St. Justin the Martyr explained the Mass said there in 155 AD to the Roman Emperor. And it was done by the hand of a secular mayor.

So you can applaud an athiest for helping the Mormon administration in SLC for that.

The Vatican does not even know that much about Mormonism, and its beliefs started to come to the Church’s attention with its ‘baptisms of the dead’, using our sacramental records. Those given out were likewise done so by individuals who simply were not thinking, and giving out sacramental records is not a uniform practice by all pastors.

I am an old lady and my tolerance for anti-Catholic propaganda being taught to trusting believers is rife in this country…finally, the Catholic Church is preparing many laymen now in post graduate education to counter this sad movement in our country.

 

[zaffiroborant]

While the Catholic church spends (or has spent, really; across the centuries) much time denouncing heresy; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints focuses on teaching of Christ, spreading the gospel and proclaiming truth.

.

This is disingenuous, while the LDS may not use the word heresy they do indeed denounce what they call the great apostasy, which declares that the original teachings of the church were abandoned and that other false beliefs replaced them. Heresy at it’s most basic is a declaration that a belief is false, that’s exactly what the LDS church teaches. At this very moment an LDS missionary is teaching someone that “all their creeds were an abomination”. The Preach my Gospel manual tells missionaries

"Investigators must understand that a universal apostasy occurred following the death of Jesus
Christ and His Apostles.

Corrupt, distorted, darkness. lost, pagan, false Christianity, words used in the Preach my Gospel manual which is used by all LDS missionaries, and in the Gospel Principles manual use for new members (and if I’m not mistaken is currently being used by the entire LDS church in their Sunday school program )
So don’t tell me the LDS church doesn’t talk about “heresy”, they do every single day around the world each and every time they teach about our “spiritual darkness” and abominable creeds.

 

[KathleenGee]

The intense indoctrination about the corruption and abominable teachings of the universal Catholic church is the very reason that LDS assumes its justification.

People buy it because they have no knowledge of Catholic Church history.

But this position is not based on the reality of history, proven by Christ’s Church’s documentation…we have so much documentation and attestment to the truth and reason of our faith, that it makes our library is the greatest in the world…all affirming Christ and His works…

On the contrary, the LDS religion makes no effort to prove its claim through artifacts, and verifiable archaeological and anthropological findings.

So LDS religion is most aggressive in justifying itself through indoctrination and misrepresentation its own existence, with no documentation, but invalidates and condemns our Church which does truly represents itself and provides back up and history to prove it.

 

[Miriam1947]

KathleenGee: The entire construct of Mormonism regarding a moronic angel appearing to Smith 1800 years after a failed mission of Christ…to restore the ‘church’…because the great Roman Church and its daughters were an abomination with corrupt doctrine…is false, s

moronic:

moron |ˈmôrˌän|
noun informal
a stupid person.
DERIVATIVES
moronic |məˈränik; mô-| adjective
moronically |məˈränik(ə)lē; mô-| adverb
ORIGIN early 20th cent. (as a medical term denoting an adult with a mental age of about 8–12): from Greek mōron, neuter of mōros ‘foolish.’

I’m sure you didn’t mean it quite that way though I must admit I did get quite the chuckle out of it.

 

[KathleenGee]

Miriam, I did.

I have studied language study, particularly the English language…and have lived among Italian immigrants my entire life.

There is a thread that someone brought out the possible reference to the name, ‘Moroni’…my memory is not clear…can’t remember it…

Cumorrah sounds Irish.

And I think of how the Communists labelled American university professors who promoted anti-Americanism, anti-free market, and anti Catholciism, somewhat veiled, along with denouncing Western Civilization…which the Catholic Church greatly influenced through philosophy, arts, music, health and education for the general population along with the poor…the Communists labelled the American academic intelligencia…as ‘useful idiots’.