Mormon "Apostasy & Restoration"

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anna_Scott said:
Pratt bore false witness against God, period, end of story.
Click to expand...
dianaiad said:
Evidently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agreed with you. Over ----*** one hundred and fifty five years ago.***
Click to expand...
Anna_Scott said:
I’m glad we finally agree on, at least, one issue.
Click to expand...
dianaiad said:
DO we?

Then why are you insisting that we still (or in fact, EVER DID) believe in ideas that the church has insisted was wrong for over a century and a half?

Y’know, we can’t win with you people. . . .
Click to expand...
dianaiad,

So, you are disagreeing about agreeing with me?
 
RebeccaJ said:
No one ever yelled at Pratt for what he said about Catholics…he did butt heads with Young over other issues. This was not one of them.
Click to expand...
dianaiad said:
Yes, actually, it was–and I posted the quote to prove it.
Click to expand...
RebeccaJ said:
this one…

“The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.”
Click to expand...
The context of the quote.
“There are great and important truths connected with the eternities of our God and with man’s existence past, present and future, which the Almighty, in his wisdom, sees fit to conceal from the children of men. The latter are evidently unprepared to receive them, and there could be no possible benefit accrue to them, at present, from their revelation. It is in this light that we view the points of doctrine which we have quoted. If they were true, we would think it unwise to have them made public as these have been. But the expounder of these points of doctrine acknowledges that he has not had any revelation from the heavens in relation to them, and we know that we have had no revelation from God respecting them, except to know that many of them are false, and that the publication of all of them is unwise and objectionable. They are mere hypotheses, and should be perused and accepted as such, and not as doctrines of the Church. Whenever brother Orson Pratt has written upon that which he knows, and has confined himself to doctrines which he understands, his arguments are convincing and unanswerable; but, when he has indulged in hypotheses and theories, he has launched forth on an endless sea of speculation to which there is no horizon. The last half of the tract entitled “The Holy Spirit,” contains excellent and conclusive arguments, and is all that could be wished; so also with many of his writings.** But the Seer The Great First Cafe, the article in the Millennial Star of October 15th, and November 1, 1850, on the Holy Spirit, and the first half of the tract, also on the Holy Spirit, contain doctrines which we cannot sanction,** and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed; with proper care this can be done without much, if any, injury to the volumes.”
Click to expand...
As you can read, what you quoted is only in regards to “the Seer The Great First Cafe, the article in the Millennial Star of October 15th, and November 1, 1850, on the Holy Spirit, and the first half of the tract, also on the Holy Spirit,”, and very specifically NOT everything Orson Pratt ever wrote/published.
 
RebeccaJ said:
It is interesting how LDS today are so easily throwing Orson Pratt and/or Brigham Young under the bus.
Click to expand...
Rebecca,

I need to stay away from the Mormon threads. It’s a tedious cycle of the same discussions and the same arguments.

Pratt has been thrown under the bus–to some extent. When a person claims a revelation from God; and it is proven to be false, how can that person be trusted again? Why keep any of his writings?

The Mormon Church claims the “Church” never taught Adam is God; even though their “prophet,” Brigham Young declared this doctrine for more than 20 years. B.Young claimed this was revealed to him by God—clearly a false prophet. A university keeps his name alive. Every time I hear Young’s name, I think, “false prophet, false religion.”

Anna
 
RebeccaJ said:
Didn’t you say you are a lifelong mormon and you don’t know either?

lol. We had a whole thread on this once…the best any one could come up with is that it is taught to mormon children when they are really, really young as an endeavor towards holding wiggly kids still and quiet, and it just sticks for life.
Click to expand...
You could be right. 😉

However, I didn’t know that our questioner was a 22 year old ex-Mormon wanting to be snarky. I thought she was serious, and gave her a serious answer. It seems to me that if she WERE a Mormon for that long, she would know what the rest of us know about the matter.

Right now, though, given my experience with folks who–after having been a member of a belief system for 22 years–ask a seemingly guiless question, I’m betting that she had an ulterior motive: she is either going to make fun of it, come up with some nutsy explanation of it that has roots in occult witch ceremonies or something, or have some write-by comment about the stupidity of our prayer practices. Just watch.
 
RebeccaJ said:
It is interesting how LDS today are so easily throwing Orson Pratt and/or Brigham Young under the bus.
Click to expand...
Really. I give you the information about how the church castigated Pratt over a 150 years ago, DURING HIS LIFETIME, about this and other issues, and you think that the LDS TODAY are 'easily throwing Orson Pratt and/or Brigham Young under the bus?"

Should I accuse Catholics of being insensitive by throwing the Gnostics ‘under the bus?’
 
Anna_Scott said:
dianaiad,

So, you are disagreeing about agreeing with me?
Click to expand...
What, do I agree with you that the LDS church is anti-Catholic and a bunch of bigots because a few early church leaders thought that the Revelation “whore of Babylon” = "Catholic church, and were told that this was incorrect BY the church?

Why, no. As a matter of fact, I don’t agree with you.
 
RebeccaJ said:
The context of the quote.
As you can read, what you quoted is only in regards to “the Seer The Great First Cafe, the article in the Millennial Star of October 15th, and November 1, 1850, on the Holy Spirit, and the first half of the tract, also on the Holy Spirit,”, and very specifically NOT everything Orson Pratt ever wrote/published.
Click to expand...
You didn’t read your own context, Rebecca. That specific item is only one of the writings that were disavowed.
 
Anna_Scott said:
Rebecca,

I need to stay away from the Mormon threads. It’s a tedious cycle of the same discussions and the same arguments.

Pratt has been thrown under the bus–to some extent. When a person claims a revelation from God; and it is proven to be false, how can that person be trusted again? Why keep any of his writings?

The Mormon Church claims the “Church” never taught Adam is God; even though their “prophet,” Brigham Young declared this doctrine for more than 20 years. B.Young claimed this was revealed to him by God—clearly a false prophet. A university keeps his name alive. Every time I hear Young’s name, I think, “false prophet, false religion.”

Anna
Click to expand...
Do you understand the concept “a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as such?” You have a similar one about being a Pope…it is only in certain circumstances that he can invoke the idea of Papal infallibility. In all other things, the Pope can be, and has been, very fallible indeed.

It seems to me that we Mormons are quite aware of the difference between Brigham Young the man…and Brigham Young the prophet. Brigham Young the man was fallible. He made mistakes, and he speculated a LOT. However, he himself was very aware of his failings in this matter, and was very careful about what got put into scripture.

So no…“Brigham Young” and the Journal of Discourses does NOT equal 'the church taught." WE know this about our church teachings. Since WE do, why don’t you? You seem to have this concept down about Catholicism.
 
Stephen168 said:
Or the Mormon Church agrees with you and dianiad doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Well, since what she seems to think I should agree with her on is that the church is a bunch of bigotted anti-Catholics, and I have shown you where very prominent Mormons have had their hands royally slapped by the church for making such statements, I fail to see why I should agree with this position.
 
SteveVH said:
When I started this thread is was with the intention of addressing the claim that the LDS church had “restored” the original Christian faith. This purportedly is the reason for the existence of the Mormons, the one legged stool upon which the entire organization is precariously balanced.

If one decided to “restore” an antique car he would research everything he could get his hands on in order to determine how it looked, what were its orignal parts and what were they made of. Knowing that adding new or “modern parts” would invalidate it as a restored original he would search the country for original parts in order to maintain its authenticity. If he had to add “modern parts” it would loose its value as a true restoration. While it might be beautiful in appearance to some, and while someone may even desire to buy it, an honest man would not try to pass it off as a “restored” original. If he did, he would be considered a fraud.

From what I can determine, the LDS church has rejected the most basic of Christian dogma, from the virgin birth, to the nature of the one true God as Trinity, to denial of the Holy Eucharist, to polytheism. In other words, they did not even try to come close to the original. While being free to create whatever religion they choose, they have chosen instead to paint their own picture over the masterpiece and call it a restoration. That very action makes it a fraud.

With all due respect to those Mormons who have posted here, I have seen nothing of substance, nothing in history, in the witness of the early Church, that even comes close to the doctrines espoused by by the LDS.

My intention in starting this thread was to make sure that my suspicions were correct as to this claim of “restoration”, not to begin a Mormon bashing session. I’m not interested in debating newly invented doctrines which are based upon nothing more than an active imagination by Joseph Smith and his successors. It seems that you begin with the very false assumption that activities and beliefs in the early Church happened so long ago that no one really knows, therefore it is open to specualtion as to what the original Church believed. Sorry, the evidence is not in your favor. I think I have the answer for which I was looking.

I would invite you to explore the claims of the Catholic Church, the unbroken line of apostolic succession, the 2000 years of documented history, not supposition. Tear it apart, look at everything, both its beauty and its flaws. That is when you will find the original that you say you are looking for.

God bless all of you.
Click to expand...
I have read 4 books on mormonism as well as portions of the book of mormon(I could only take so much) and recomended readings from a mormon apologetics book. The best Book for understanding mormanism is One Nation Under Gods. It is very well written and fascinating. The best part is the origins of their Book of Abraham.
 
dianaiad said:
And

A prophet is someone who recieves that public revelation you speak of, Theosis…who is authorized to speak for God. It’s not about fortelling the future. It’s about giving us God’s Word.

.
Click to expand...
God said you would know His prophets because they would correctly tell the future, something Joseph Smith was not able to do correctly not even once! He made about 100 predictions and got not a single one right. If God ever proved a prophet false He did it with Joseph Smith.
 
dianaiad said:
DO we?

Then why are you insisting that we still (or in fact, EVER DID) believe in ideas that the church has insisted was wrong for over a century and a half?

Y’know, we can’t win with you people.

Sometimes I get the impression that none of you really want to know what Mormons actually believe. All you want to do is invent the worst possible set of beliefs you can come up with so that you can be shocked and upset; even if you have to make things up, or do something like THIS—attacking the church for being a bunch of anti-Catholic bigots, and use for prooftexts quotes that are not only a century and a half old, but quotes that were disavowed by the church as incorrect and wrong as soon as they were made.

It’s like insisting that the Catholics are all vegetarians, and using Albegensian texts to prove it.
Click to expand...
thats because they get a similar treatment from some of us protestants.:rolleyes:
 
dianaiad said:
Well, since what she seems to think I should agree with her on is that the church is a bunch of bigotted anti-Catholics, and I have shown you where very prominent Mormons have had their hands royally slapped by the church for making such statements, I fail to see why I should agree with this position.
Click to expand...
Being a bigoted anti-catholic is the foundation for the belief in an apostasy. The latter-day-saint movement was founded by anti-catholic bigots.
 
dianaiad said:
Really. I give you the information about how the church castigated Pratt over a 150 years ago, DURING HIS LIFETIME, about this and other issues, and you think that the LDS TODAY are 'easily throwing Orson Pratt and/or Brigham Young under the bus?"

Should I accuse Catholics of being insensitive by throwing the Gnostics ‘under the bus?’
Click to expand...
OK, you chose the side of Young, until we start talking Adam is God the Father, then I’m sure, under the bus he goes!

Gnosticism has always been pronounced as a heresy. mormonism has a list of old doctrines that you want us to forget were ever taught, but have NEVER been declared to be error by any leader of your church. So what is your point?
 
dianaiad said:
Do you understand the concept “a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as such?” You have a similar one about being a Pope…it is only in certain circumstances that he can invoke the idea of Papal infallibility. In all other things, the Pope can be, and has been, very fallible indeed.

It seems to me that we Mormons are quite aware of the difference between Brigham Young the man…and Brigham Young the prophet. Brigham Young the man was fallible. He made mistakes, and he speculated a LOT. However, he himself was very aware of his failings in this matter, and was very careful about what got put into scripture.

So no…“Brigham Young” and the Journal of Discourses does NOT equal 'the church taught." WE know this about our church teachings. Since WE do, why don’t you? You seem to have this concept down about Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Didn’t take more than a post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top