Mormons and Catholics Get Along Fine!

[Christian55]

Good afternoon Christian55. I hope you are having a wonderful day!

Please reference post #161 for any questions regarding the Adam-God doctrine. Please see the thread “Understanding Mormon Doctrine” particularly posts 1 and 2 to understand the hierarchy and process of how new revelation is made binding and official for the whole church.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

**Finrcok:

I read your "Post #161; and your Posts 1 and 2 on Thread “Understanding Mormon Doctrine.”

Nothing you have written answers any of my questions. No matter how many times I ask, you never answer. You either ignore the questions or just move on to a different Thread.

Why are you so unwilling to answer questions about your own religion? These are interactive forums.

If you Post your ideas and refuse to answer questions; your Posts could easily be viewed as a one-way propaganda effort.

There are a surprising number of LDS/Mormon Threads on this Catholic Forum. If you want to participate on the Forums; at least show Forum Members, of all denominations, enough respect to answer our questions.

Since Finrock refuses to answer the difficult questions; are there any LDS Forum Members who are willing to answer my 7 questions on Post #173 and Post #174?
**

 

[dianaiad]

Yet, the fact remains, and ParkerD stated it when he says he “follows a living prophet”. BY, when he spoke these things, was the living prophet of his time. Either BY misled the Mormons of his time, or, your prophet today is wrong in denying what BY taught.

This only brings to mind, “one faith, one church”, which, this is not demonstrating.

Excuse me, Rebecca, but if WE allow our prophets and leaders the right to be incorrect in their personal opinions, then why do non-Mormons get to insist that no prophet can be imperfect, or be wrong?

Y’don’t, y’know. For one thing, if a prophet of God had to be perfectly correct in everything he says, there simply would not be any prophets, period. No OT prophet with a mention more than five verses long was portrayed as perfect; Isaac and Abraham made some really bad decisions, family wise. David screwed up. Joseph was (understandably, but even so) rather nasty to his family. Peter denied the Lord. Paul was an arrogant sort of person…Moses committed murder and was denied the right to cross over to the promised land because he took credit for something he should not have…(and his marriage wasn’t all that wonderful, come to think of it…) Do we really need to examine, say, Jonah???

And those are just the imperfections that made it INTO the scriptures.

There has only been one perfect Man, and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, no matter what they accomplished, were not Him.

The basic process for LDS doctrine to become that has been explained. The process of canonization has been explained…and whether our critics/enemies like it or not, the Adam/God theory never made it to that level. Was it taught as opinion? Sure. Is it LDS Doctrine? Not even close. Was it ever? Not even close.

In fact, this idea is one of the things that makes me understand so completely that there are two entirely different Mormonisms around; the one that our critics love to portray----and the real one that bears very little resemblance to it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Excuse me, Rebecca, but if WE allow our prophets and leaders the right to be incorrect in their personal opinions, then why do non-Mormons get to insist that no prophet can be imperfect, or be wrong?

Y’don’t, y’know. For one thing, if a prophet of God had to be perfectly correct in everything he says, there simply would not be any prophets, period. No OT prophet with a mention more than five verses long was portrayed as perfect; Isaac and Abraham made some really bad decisions, family wise. David screwed up. Joseph was (understandably, but even so) rather nasty to his family. Peter denied the Lord. Paul was an arrogant sort of person…Moses committed murder and was denied the right to cross over to the promised land because he took credit for something he should not have…(and his marriage wasn’t all that wonderful, come to think of it…) Do we really need to examine, say, Jonah???

And those are just the imperfections that made it INTO the scriptures.

There has only been one perfect Man, and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, no matter what they accomplished, were not Him.

The basic process for LDS doctrine to become that has been explained. The process of canonization has been explained…and whether our critics/enemies like it or not, the Adam/God theory never made it to that level. Was it taught as opinion? Sure. Is it LDS Doctrine? Not even close. Was it ever? Not even close.

In fact, this idea is one of the things that makes me understand so completely that there are two entirely different Mormonisms around; the one that our critics love to portray----and the real one that bears very little resemblance to it.

I am not talking about perfection Diana. I am talking about your own prophets claiming they are speaking divine truth, and even calling what they are teaching “scripture”. Your Adam/God teaching continued to be taught, by subsequent prophets. Obviously, Mormons believed them and taught them, or this teaching wouldn’t be floating around still, in your wards and seminaries. 150 years or so later, there is an effort to discard these teachings as “opinion” or “folk doctrine”. And this is just one. I could make a list a lot longer, just off the top of my head.

My question still remains: How do you know that what your prophets are teaching today, will not be discarded as opinion or folk doctrine tomorrow?

I have asked this of more than a few Mormons. None have an answer. Citing this "vote " does not address what I am asking. For all the Mormon doctrines, but a handful have been voted on. And citing what is scripture does not answer it either, as your church teaches what your prophets teach you, is scripture.

(Not to mention, your canon of scripture has changed, with no vote.)

 

[dianaiad]

**Post #161 does not answer my questions. **

**You cited the “Standard Works of the Church” as “true, official, and binding doctrines.” Brigham Young’s statements regarding Adam/god are contained in the “Journal of Discourses,” declared to be “standard works of the church,” by Mormon Prophet/President George Q. Cannon. **

Sorry, no. the “Standard Works” of the church are: The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants. That’s it.

the

(2.) So, by what authority do you claim the Adam-God theory was never a doctrine of the Mormon Church, when it is in the Journal of Discourses," declared to be “standard works of the church,” by Mormon Prophet/President George Q. Cannon?

Brigham Young’s First Counselor, Heber C. Kimball, voiced his agreement that Adam is god, on June 29, 1856:

Because the Journal of Discourses is not one of the books we claim as scripture, or 'the standard works" in that sense. Is it important? Sure. Does it contain a lot of neat stuff? of course. So does the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “Mormon Doctrine,” “Jesus the Christ” and a whole slew of other works…and they aren’t scripture either.
,snip to end>

You are arguing a straw man, and your questions have been answered. Your claim that they have not is ludicrous.

 

[RebeccaJ]

OK, the bolded emphasis is mine…and that’s the context. The important words to consider are those bolded, italicized bits. The REALLY important bit is 'Thus saith the Lord." You have been told what is required to put 'Thus saith the Lord" to a pronouncement of a prophet of the CoJCoLDS, and it’s considerably more than a declaration from the pulpit during conference—or in a book of speeches that Brigham Young never did get to proofread for accuracy before they were published in England.

First:

'“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D. & C. 21:4, 5). In this commandment there is no limitation upon the prophet, as to subject, time, or place.

Such official prophetic utterances to the Church are usually made in the great general conferences of the Church, or in signed statements circulated among the people. The phrase “Thus sayeth the Lord” may at times be used; but is not necessary. When the prophet speaks to the people in an official gathering or over his signature, he speaks as the Lord directs him.’ (“Evidences and Reconciliations”, John A. Widtsoe, Deseret Book, 1943)

"Unfortunately, some Church members place limitations on prophetic statements. Some will not accept anything as a genuine prophetic declaration unless it is prefaced by the phrase “thus saith the Lord.” President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., demonstrated the fallacy of such a position:

“There are those who insist that unless the Prophet of the Lord declares, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ the message may not be taken as a revelation. This is a false testing standard. For while many of our modern revelations as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants do contain these words, there are many that do not.” (“When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?” p. 10.)

“The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.
“Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, ‘Thou shalt give heed unto * all his words and commandments *which he shall give unto you’ (D&C 21:4; italics added).” (Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Living Prophet,” pp. 27–28.)

A revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 108, to Lyman Wight illustrates the value the Lord places on the counsels of his prophet. “Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed” (D&C 108:1." (“Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual”, institute.lds.org/manuals/teachings-of-the-livings-prophets/tlp-4-7.asp, retrieved 8 July 2009)

Second: Why do you believe BY when he is teaching what you posted, but not what he taught about Adam being God?

Because the Journal of Discourses is not one of the books we claim as scripture, or 'the standard works" in that sense. Is it important? Sure. Does it contain a lot of neat stuff? of course. So does the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “Mormon Doctrine,” “Jesus the Christ” and a whole slew of other works…and they aren’t scripture either.
,snip to end>

You are arguing a straw man, and your questions have been answered. Your claim that they have not is ludicrous.

The Journal of Discourses published the sermons of your prophet, similar to the the Ensign magazine, or the Deseret New’s “Church News” publishes today. LDS adhered to the words of their prophet then, just as you do today.

 

[zerinus]

First:

'“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D. & C. 21:4, 5). In this commandment there is no limitation upon the prophet, as to subject, time, or place.

You got that one wrong I am afraid. This is what it actually says:

D&C 21:

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

Such official prophetic utterances to the Church are usually made in the great general conferences of the Church, or in signed statements circulated among the people. The phrase “Thus sayeth the Lord” may at times be used; but is not necessary. When the prophet speaks to the people in an official gathering or over his signature, he speaks as the Lord directs him.’ (“Evidences and Reconciliations”, John A. Widtsoe, Deseret Book, 1943)

"Unfortunately, some Church members place limitations on prophetic statements. Some will not accept anything as a genuine prophetic declaration unless it is prefaced by the phrase “thus saith the Lord.” President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., demonstrated the fallacy of such a position:

“There are those who insist that unless the Prophet of the Lord declares, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ the message may not be taken as a revelation. This is a false testing standard. For while many of our modern revelations as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants do contain these words, there are many that do not.” (“When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?” p. 10.)

“The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.
“Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, ‘Thou shalt give heed unto * all his words and commandments *which he shall give unto you’ (D&C 21:4; italics added).” (Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Living Prophet,” pp. 27–28.)

A revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 108, to Lyman Wight illustrates the value the Lord places on the counsels of his prophet. “Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed” (D&C 108:1." (“Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual”, institute.lds.org/manuals/teachings-of-the-livings-prophets/tlp-4-7.asp, retrieved 8 July 2009)

True; but none of the above implies that the Prophet and President of the Church cannot make a mistake in doctrine. They are two different things. One simply doesn’t follow from the other. It was Brigham young himself who said:

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world . . . to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied . . . Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (Journal of Discourses, 3:5.)

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are lead by him. . . . Let every man and woman know themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not.” (Journal of Discourses, 9:150.)

Second: Why do you believe BY when he is teaching what you posted, but not what he taught about Adam being God?

Because Latter-day Saints have a special mandate to have the Holy Spirit with them at all times, and be independent judges of all things, and be able to test the teaching of everyone by inspiration and the revealed word of God to determine if it is doctrinally sound or not, like Paul said: “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man” (Corinthians 2:15).

The Journal of Discourses published the sermons of your prophet, similar to the the Ensign magazine, or the Deseret New’s “Church News” publishes today. LDS adhered to the words of their prophet then, just as you do today.

And so they should. No contradiction there.

 

[Christian55]

This was question (1.) Mormon Prophet, Brigham Young, declared his Sermons to be Scripture. His teachings that Adam is god, were revealed in one of his Sermons. Does this mean Brigham Young was a false prophet?

Your response:

Sort of. However, you have taken that claim so entirely out of context…Here is the quote you are referring to, IN context. Ready?

**Now, Question (8.) **Are you saying Brigham Young is “sort of” a false prophet?

". . . . .The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.*** Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve***

. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this [discourse] go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, Page 95)

. . . . .The REALLY important bit is 'Thus saith the Lord." You have been told what is required to put 'Thus saith the Lord" to a pronouncement of a prophet of the CoJCoLDS, and it’s considerably more than a declaration from the pulpit during conference—or in a book of speeches that Brigham Young never did get to proofread for accuracy before they were published in England.

**Now Question (9.) **So, did Brigham Young correct his Sermons regarding Adam being God?

**(6.) **You still did not address issue raised by RebeccaJ regarding Clyde J. Williams (1996) lists the one exception to the need to “discern the truthfulness of ideas”: “prophet, seer, and revelator.” Brigham Young was a “prophet,” so how can his ideas not be held as truth?

"a. We can better discern the truthfulness of ideas by comparing them with the truths we learn from the scriptures and our current leaders. President Harold B. Lee taught: “If [someone] writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard Church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception

—you may immediately say, ‘Well, that is his own idea.’ And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 540–41)."

The Journal of Discourses, in case you haven’t noticed, is not numbered in our books of scripture. YOU may wish they were, but they aren’t and never have been.

I don’t wish anything. I am just trying to get a true picture of your faith.

Sorry, no. the “Standard Works” of the church are: The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants. That’s it.

**Actually, Mormon Prophet/President George Q. Cannon declared the “Journal of Discourses,” to be “standard works of the church.”

Finrock cited the “Standard Works of the Church” as “true, official, and binding doctrines.”

So, you are arguing against Cannon and Finrock, not me.**

Because the Journal of Discourses is not one of the books we claim as scripture, or 'the standard works" in that sense. Is it important? Sure. Does it contain a lot of neat stuff? of course. So does the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “Mormon Doctrine,” “Jesus the Christ” and a whole slew of other works…and they aren’t scripture either. ,snip to end>

(3.) At what point in the history, did the Mormon Church reject the Adam/god doctrine? Please provide dates and quotes.

Finrock has not anwered Questions 4 or 5:

(4.)

If the Mormon Church does not accept “what Brigham Young taught in regards to the Adam-God theory;” why would you say, “It is possible that Brigham Young is teaching the truth?”

(5.) By what authority do you claim Young’s teachings may be truth; when the Mormon Church does not accept Young’s teachings?

(7.) In all the history of revelations received by the True Prophets of God, as recorded in the Bible; not once did the “Prophet” need to have his revelation approved by anyone. There were no “Quorums of Twelve,” etc. A True Prophet of God receives revelation directly from God. So, please explain how the Mormon Prophets receive these “revelations” and why your Prophets need to have their teachings approved by anyone.

You are arguing a straw man, and your questions have been answered. Your claim that they have not is ludicrous.

Please check review the questions and check your answers.

 

[Christian55]

Excuse me, Rebecca, but if WE allow our prophets and leaders the right to be incorrect in their personal opinions, then why do non-Mormons get to insist that no prophet can be imperfect, or be wrong?

Y’don’t, y’know. For one thing, if a prophet of God had to be perfectly correct in everything he says, there simply would not be any prophets, period. No OT prophet with a mention more than five verses long was portrayed as perfect; Isaac and Abraham made some really bad decisions, family wise. David screwed up. Joseph was (understandably, but even so) rather nasty to his family. Peter denied the Lord. Paul was an arrogant sort of person…Moses committed murder and was denied the right to cross over to the promised land because he took credit for something he should not have…(and his marriage wasn’t all that wonderful, come to think of it…) Do we really need to examine, say, Jonah???

And those are just the imperfections that made it INTO the scriptures.

There has only been one perfect Man, and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, no matter what they accomplished, were not Him.

The basic process for LDS doctrine to become that has been explained. The process of canonization has been explained…and whether our critics/enemies like it or not, the Adam/God theory never made it to that level. Was it taught as opinion? Sure. Is it LDS Doctrine? Not even close. Was it ever? Not even close.

In fact, this idea is one of the things that makes me understand so completely that there are two entirely different Mormonisms around; the one that our critics love to portray----and the real one that bears very little resemblance to it.

**The issue of a Prophet is a very serious one.

The test of a true Prophet is that all his prophesies must come true.

The Bible clearly states, a prophet who presumes to speak in the name of God, anything God did not command him to say, must be put to death.

Death was the punishment for false prophecy. This is a critical issue.

Deuteronomy 18:19-22 (New International Version): 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.**

 

[RebeccaJ]

You got that one wrong I am afraid. This is what it actually says:

hi zerinus, no fear, I copied and pasted from the lds.org website. If you think it is in error, perhaps you should contact your church.

Because Latter-day Saints have a special mandate to have the Holy Spirit with them at all times, and be independent judges of all things, and be able to test the teaching of everyone by inspiration and the revealed word of God to determine if it is doctrinally sound or not, like Paul said: “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man” (Corinthians 2:15).

Many LDS accept what BY taught re: Adam being God. This includes later prophets and apostles. Do you think those who accept this as an inspired revelation from God are feeling a wrong spirit? Or, are you?

 

[ParkerD]

Rebecca J,
I usually find that you are precise in your comments, but the last paragraph of your last comment seems unusual. Did you mean “many LDS (in the 1800’s) accepted”…? And to whom were you referring with the words, “this includes later prophets”? That certainly wasn’t stated in the Wikipedia article you linked. I don’t know if you’ll want to clarify–don’t answer if you don’t. It makes little difference to me.

 

[zerinus]

hi zerinus, no fear, I copied and pasted from the lds.org website. If you think it is in error, perhaps you should contact your church.

It was wrong by omission—committed by you, not by the Church’s website.

Many LDS accept what BY taught re: Adam being God. This includes later prophets and apostles. Do you think those who accept this as an inspired revelation from God are feeling a wrong spirit? Or, are you?

Answer the same as before. If they accepted it as such, they were at fault, they shouldn’t have—as per quotes I gave from Brigham Young.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca J,
I usually find that you are precise in your comments, but the last paragraph of your last comment seems unusual. Did you mean “many LDS (in the 1800’s) accepted”…?

Does it matter the time frame? One faith, one church? You may not believe what BY taught, there are Mormons today, who still do. You can find a few of them over at the Mormon apologetics board. There, the prevailing sentiment is that BY taught doctrinal truths the world was not ready for, but they were none-the-less, doctrinal truths.

And to whom were you referring with the words, “this includes later prophets”? That certainly wasn’t stated in the Wikipedia article you linked. I don’t know if you’ll want to clarify–don’t answer if you don’t. It makes little difference to me.

That is a strange statement Parker, to ask for something, and then declare it makes little difference to yourself. Then, why ask?

It is not possible to link to a source that is not available online. Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal that Adam is the father of our spirits. He believed it was a truth that should be accepted by the world, just as Joseph Smith should be accepted as a prophet.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It was wrong by omission—committed by you, not by the Church’s website.

? I had to go back and review zerinus. I omitted nothing. I copied. I pasted. Though I see the part you are having problems with is from a book I quoted, not the LDS website.

The fact remains, I didn’t leave it out. In this particular case, Widstoe did.

Answer the same as before. If they accepted it as such, they were at fault, they shouldn’t have—as per quotes I gave from Brigham Young.

thus saith zerinus. Your current church, led by a living Monson (did you sustain him?) doesn’t seem to agree with you. Please review what I did copy and paste from the lds website.

“Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, ‘Thou shalt give heed unto * all his words and commandments *which he shall give unto you’ "

Nothing in there about your own warm fuzzies.

 

[zerinus]

? I had to go back and review zerinus. I omitted nothing. I copied. I pasted. Though I see the part you are having problems with is from a book I quoted, not the LDS website.

The fact remains, I didn’t leave it out. In this particular case, Widstoe did.

thus saith zerinus. Your current church, led by a living Monson (did you sustain him?) doesn’t seem to agree with you. Please review what I did copy and paste from the lds website.

“Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, ‘Thou shalt give heed unto * all his words and commandments *which he shall give unto you’ "

Nothing in there about your own warm fuzzies.

Answers already given. You have not added anything new that I should add to the answers given.

 

[Christian55]

? I had to go back and review zerinus. I omitted nothing. I copied. I pasted. Though I see the part you are having problems with is from a book I quoted, not the LDS website.

The fact remains, I didn’t leave it out. In this particular case, Widstoe did.

thus saith zerinus. Your current church, led by a living Monson (did you sustain him?) doesn’t seem to agree with you. Please review what I did copy and paste from the lds website.

“Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, ‘Thou shalt give heed unto * all his words and commandments *which he shall give unto you’ "

Nothing in there about your own warm fuzzies.

RebeccaJ:

I doubt you will get a direct answer to any of the tough questions. I’ve been trying on different Threads. LDS members claim they’ve answered the questions, when they clearly have not.

Finrock usually moves on to a new Thread, when faced with the difficult questions.

Some LDS forum members hurl insults, when I persist with a question. I’ve been called terrible names, just because I try to get questions answered. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[mjf001]

Answers already given. You have not added anything new that I should add to the answers given.

This is to Zerinus and any of the LDS who would like to comment. I was taught, growing up LDS, that the prophet receives direct communication from God.
If a prophet utters a falsehood in doctrine, whether it is opinion or doctrine, how can you trust anything he says? Either he is God’s mouthpiece or he isn’t.

To say that Adam is/was God is blasphemy, from a Catholic point of view. This was uttered by Brigham Young, in whatever context, in General Conference. How do you square this from the “mouthpiece of God?”

I look forward to your response.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[zerinus]

This is to Zerinus and any of the LDS who would like to comment. I was taught, growing up LDS, that the prophet receives direct communication from God.
If a prophet utters a falsehood in doctrine, whether it is opinion or doctrine, how can you trust anything he says? Either he is God’s mouthpiece or he isn’t.

To say that Adam is/was God is blasphemy, from a Catholic point of view. This was uttered by Brigham Young, in whatever context, in General Conference. How do you square this from the “mouthpiece of God?”

I look forward to your response.

In Christ,
Michael

You look at all of the other great contributions he has made, both as a prophet, as well as a pioneer (under divine direction) and a great leader of a great people; and you see it as an aberation, and attribute it to the weakness of the human nature. God never sent anyone to hell for erring in doctrine.

 

[mjf001]

You look at all of the other great contributions he has made, both as a prophet, as well as a pioneer (under divine direction) and a great leader of a great people; and you see it as an aberation, and attribute it to the weakness of the human nature. God never sent anyone to hell for erring in doctrine.

Zerinus, I’ve now read the sermon in context. There are many questionable statements made in that sermon. Adam being the St. Michael the archangel, Adam being the Father, Christ being begotten of the Father as in the Garden, and not by the power of the Holy Spirit. If I’d heard these statements while I still believed the way I’d been taught, as an LDS, I’m pretty sure I would have started questioning, right then.
As a Catholic, I find the entire sermon offensive. I can’t say I would say it was inspired by God.
So, I repeat my question. How can a prophet, who is supposed to have direct communication with God, according to LDS belief, utter these kind of statements in whatever context, and still retain his credibility as a prophet? Truth is truth, it doesn’t change.

 

[ParkerD]

This is to Zerinus and any of the LDS who would like to comment. I was taught, growing up LDS, that the prophet receives direct communication from God.
If a prophet utters a falsehood in doctrine, whether it is opinion or doctrine, how can you trust anything he says? Either he is God’s mouthpiece or he isn’t.

To say that Adam is/was God is blasphemy, from a Catholic point of view. This was uttered by Brigham Young, in whatever context, in General Conference. How do you square this from the “mouthpiece of God?”

I look forward to your response.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael,
Growing up LDS, did you never hear the saying that “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”? Did you never understand that the Quorum of the Twelve needed to have a completely unanimous feeling about a “doctrine” in order for it to be taught as doctrine? If not, then you weren’t taught well. Did you never understand that each person needs to get a spiritual witness by the Holy Ghost for even the teachings of the prophets and apostles–in other words, there really should be no such thing as “blind faith” or “blind obedience”? These things are plainly taught.

A “prophet” (especially under the stresses Brigham Young was under during his life) can have a “bad day”. Just because he is the Lord’s mouthpiece does not mean everything he says is what the Lord would say, because the Lord even lets the prophet learn and grow and seek inspiration and not necessarily “get it right” every time. The Lord let Brigham Young say what he felt he wanted to say, and let the order of the church take care of the matter in this instance–the apostles disagreed, and the matter was eventually dropped.

The credibility issue has to do with getting personal witness from the Holy Ghost whenever one hears a lesson or a talk or a message or a change in procedure. The Holy Ghost is the perfect credible witness. Men are not. They bear witness, but the Holy Ghost is the sealing influence who tells those who are listening whether the witness being conveyed by a teacher or a leader is true.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

I doubt you will get a direct answer to any of the tough questions. I’ve been trying on different Threads. LDS members claim they’ve answered the questions, when they clearly have not.

Finrock usually moves on to a new Thread, when faced with the difficult questions.

Some LDS forum members hurl insults, when I persist with a question. I’ve been called terrible names, just because I try to get questions answered. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Your persistence is seen at best, as you lacking in faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit. At worse, as an enemy that is persecuting.

I wouldn’t take it personally.