Mormons and Catholics Get Along Fine!

[ParkerD]

ParkerD: you quoted Daniel 7:9-22, and then stated the following:

**It appears that you are avoiding the issue here. Joseph Smith’s claim that Adam is the “Ancient of Days,” fits well with the words of Brigham Young, who stated very clearly that Adam is God. **

This is a quote from the second Mormon Prophet, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852, found in the Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church, Volume 1 (For Forum Members who do not have access to the LDS Journal of Discourses, it is online at journalofdiscourses.org/volume-01/):

Brigham Young makes such offensive claims. They are not in anyway related to Catholic doctrine or any other Christian doctrine that I am aware of.

Christian55,
Brigham Young said a few things that I don’t agree with, but I follow a living prophet (not BY) and I’m sure BY will have the chance to explain what he meant to the people who are able to ask him their questions in the spirit world. I personally don’t understand what he is quoted as having said that you noted, and I understand why it has gotten you upset. But you could look at it as a gift, in that it gives you what you want–an axe to grind. If you have studied Mormonism at all, you would know that BY’s quotation has not been upheld as in any way “doctrinal” or “believed” by current leaders in the LDS church. It was BY’s opinion, not a binding teaching.

There is something worth noting, having to do with the sealing power and with the prophecy of Malachi about the mission and return of Elijah the prophet, and the turning of the hearts of the children to their fathers. Adam as the patriarch, becomes the linked oldest patriarch after all the sealing work for the entire human family is completed. Thus, he holds an important position in the patriarchal order of the priesthood as given to men on earth. I have great respect for Adam and for Eve, (as also for Seth and for Enoch, for Noah and Abraham and Melchizedek–some of the other great patriarchs, and for the faithful women they married).

 

[thecourt]

I beg to differ.

Some Catholics and Mormons respect each other just fine. Some Catholics and Mormons, such as myself being a Mormon, will defend what I believe regardless what is said or done, not said or not done.

“Branding” of people has been in my view, nothing new with humanity and or human nature. Whether you are white or black, your sexual preference, a nation of origin, politics or lack of interest, believing in a higher power or God or nothing at all, etc, etc… I could keep going.

My point is this – when I practice integrity and honesty with other human beings, speaking the values I have a conviction of — my least concern is “have I pissed someone off, offended them, played into the political correctness movement agenda”.

 

[Finrock]

Hello again Christian55.

It appears that you are avoiding the issue here. Joseph Smith’s claim that Adam is the “Ancient of Days,” fits well with the words of Brigham Young, who stated very clearly that Adam is God.

This is a quote from the second Mormon Prophet, Brighan Young, April 9, 1852, found in the Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church, Volume 1 (For Forum Members who do not have access to the LDS Journal of Discourses, it is online at journalofdiscourses.org/volume-01/):

Brigham Young makes such offensive claims. They are not in anyway related to Catholic doctrine or any other Christian doctrine that I am aware of.

You’ve now received several answers to your concerns about what Brigham Young taught and also about what the Church of Jesus Christ teaches concerning the “Ancient of Days.” Regardless of how many times you present this topic, the answers will remain essentially the same:

1. The Church doesn’t accept what Brigham Young taught in regards to the Adam-God theory. It was never a doctrine of the Church.
2. The Church of Jesus Christ doesn’t teach that Adam is/was our God. Adam is a spirit child of Heavenly Father.
3. The Church of Jesus Christ believes that the title, “Ancient of Days”, is a reference to Adam (a regular ol’ human Adam who isn’t/wasn’t God). We do not believe that when scriptures speak of the Ancient of Days that this is referring to God. We believe that it is referring to Adam, who is not God, but who is nonetheless the father of all mortals. He is the first man and the first patriarch of the human race.

To Recap Once More:
Adam is not God and the Church never taught that he was. The Ancient of Days is a title given to Adam because of his role in being the first patriarch and the father of all mortals.

In the future, if you feel inclined to question this issue again, please refer to this post.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

1. The Church doesn’t accept what Brigham Young taught in regards to the Adam-God theory. It was never a doctrine of the Church.

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.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening RebeccaJ! It is always a pleasure to see you (virtually speaking, of course).

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.

In the thread, “Understanding Mormon Doctrine” in post #25, I responded to this same assertion you made in that thread regarding this. For your convenience, I’ll repost my response demonstrating why the dichotomy you set up is false. It isn’t either/or…

Finrock:

Absolutely, correctness is expected by Mormons. Part of the responsibility of a leader in the Church (local or general) is to ensure that correct doctrines are taught. That is why we should only used Church approved curriculum, which although not infallible, still is screened for doctrinal correctness. Also, our leaders regularly attend leadership training where they are taught correct principles as received from the General Authorities.

Just to expand on that a bit: Bishops ensure that the Ward is teaching correct doctrine. Stake Presidents ensure that Bishops are teaching correct doctrine. Area Presidencies ensure that Stake Presidents are teaching correct doctrine, and the Quorum of the Twelve ensure that Area Presidents are teaching correct doctrine. Finally, the standard by which we measure all doctrine is by the canonized scriptures, official proclamations and declarations, and the Articles of Faith. And mixed in with all of this, we try to listen to the Holy Spirit and trust in His guidance.

Mormons during Brigham Youngs time were not bound by the Adam-God theory he proposed. Also, the dichotomy you’ve provided, isn’t valid. It is possible that Brigham Young is teaching the truth, but we simply don’t understand what he means. Or, it is possible that Brigham Young is teaching the truth, but we aren’t required to accept it because it was never consistently taught and published, it was not added to our canon of scripture, there was no official declaration or proclamation pertaining to it, and it wasn’t added to the Articles of Faith. Therefore, a member is under no obligation to believe the teaching or accept it. And, I can think of a couple of other realistic possibilities, but l’ll let this suffice. In closing, let me quote from BYU professor Stephen Robinson whose sentiments about the Adam-God theory I pretty much share:

“Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch… A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called “Adam-God theory.” During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand…The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don’t know what “it” is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here… For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and…the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.”

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

Good evening RebeccaJ! It is always a pleasure to see you (virtually speaking, of course).

In the thread, “Understanding Mormon Doctrine” in post #25, I responded to this same assertion you made in that thread regarding this. For your convenience, I’ll repost my response demonstrating why the dichotomy you set up is false. It isn’t either/or…

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Yes, Finrock, and you and I both know that to claim a member of the LDS Church is not bound by what your “living prophet” says, is ludicrous.

 

[Finrock]

Yes, Finrock, and you and I both know that to claim a member of the LDS Church is not bound by what your “living prophet” says, is ludicrous.

Actually, I don’t know that. Please read post 1 and 2 of the thread “Understanding Mormon Doctrine” so that you can understand why it isn’t ludicrous that a member of the LDS church isn’t bound by ever word that is ever spoken by a President of the Church.

To briefly explain, again, from the very beginning of the Church of Jesus Christ, there was established a method to account for what constitutes binding and official doctrine of the Church. The Adam-God theory never even came close to qualifying as official and binding doctrine of the Church. It was never treated that way and it was never taught that way, by the Church.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, I don’t know that. Please read post 1 and 2 of the thread “Understanding Mormon Doctrine” so that you can understand why it isn’t ludicrous that a member of the LDS church isn’t bound by ever word that is ever spoken by a President of the Church.

To briefly explain, again, from the very beginning of the Church of Jesus Christ, there was established a method to account for what constitutes binding and official doctrine of the Church. The Adam-God theory never even came close to qualifying as official and binding doctrine of the Church. It was never treated that way and it was never taught that way, by the Church.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

This, as you well know, is incomplete. I read over at the MADB board that your lesson on personal apostasy is now being taught at a Sunday school near you. From that lesson:

“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).”

Do you need me, a Mormon apostate, to give you examples?

• Women are to have only one piercing in each ear…a Mormon friend of mine had multiple piercings in her ears, she removed them for good the DAY your Church taught this in its General Conference.
• Many years ago I had a data entry job. Your prophet taught that women should “leave their keyboards”. My Mormon co-worker quit within a month.

Please show me where these teachings are in your standard works, or official proclamations, or have ever been voted on.

 

[Christian55]

Hello again Christian55.
You’ve now received several answers to your concerns about what Brigham Young taught and also about what the Church of Jesus Christ teaches concerning the “Ancient of Days.” Regardless of how many times you present this topic, the answers will remain essentially the same:

1. The Church doesn’t accept what Brigham Young taught in regards to the Adam-God theory. It was never a doctrine of the Church.
2. The Church of Jesus Christ doesn’t teach that Adam is/was our God. Adam is a spirit child of Heavenly Father.
3. The Church of Jesus Christ believes that the title, “Ancient of Days”, is a reference to Adam (a regular ol’ human Adam who isn’t/wasn’t God). We do not believe that when scriptures speak of the Ancient of Days that this is referring to God. We believe that it is referring to Adam, who is not God, but who is nonetheless the father of all mortals. He is the first man and the first patriarch of the human race.

To Recap Once More:
Adam is not God and the Church never taught that he was. The Ancient of Days is a title given to Adam because of his role in being the first patriarch and the father of all mortals.

In the future, if you feel inclined to question this issue again, please refer to this post.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

**
There are still issues that remain. As quoted below, you named, The Standard Works, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith, as “true, official, and binding doctrines” of the Mormon Church:**

Thread: Understanding Mormon Doctrine
Thread Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=352785&page=4&highlight=understanding+mormon+doctrine

Greetings everyone!
If any critic wishes to address the doctrines of the Church, then let them address the true, official, and binding doctrines that are found in the established sources: The Standard Works, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Why would any intellectually honest individual want to do otherwise?

Mormon Prophet/President George Q. Cannon stated, “The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the church”:

Journal of Discourses, Cannon Preface Volume 8
The Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the of the lds church
Link: journalofdiscourses.org/
“About
The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the church, and every right-minded saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.”
President George Q., Cannon, Preface Volume 8

As noted above, 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 declare to be "standard works of the church."

Brigham Young declared all his sermons to be Scripture:

journalofdiscourses.org - This website is for sale! - journalofdiscourses Resources and Information.
Brigham Young, JD 13:95, January 2, 1870
“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture” (Journal of Discourses 13:95).

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

“I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth–the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world, to redeem his brethren; his life was taken, his blood shed, that our sins might be remitted. That Son called twelve men and ordained them to be Apostles, and when he departed the keys of the kingdom were deposited with three of those twelve, viz.: Peter, James, and John” (Journal of Discourses 4:1)

In Post #25 (Thread: Understanding Mormon Doctrine. Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=352785&highlight=understanding+mormon+doctrine&page=2);

Mormons during Brigham Youngs time were not bound by the Adam-God theory he proposed. Also, the dichotomy you’ve provided, isn’t valid. **It is possible that Brigham Young is teaching the truth, but we simply don’t understand what he means. **

 

[ParkerD]

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.

Rebecca J,
“Misled” them to do what? Orson Pratt never accepted the teaching, and was one of the Twelve. It was not a binding teaching, and it didn’t lead to do anything. If he had wanted it to be a binding teaching, he would have presented it to the Twelve, they would have had to vote unanimously accepting it, and then it would have been presented to the church membership to be voted upon.

Adam lived for over nine hundred years as a human on earth, with thousands of descendants who would have been living when he died. What in the world would anyone be thinking who thought any such thing as BY is quoted as having said? He didn’t explain what he meant–that is what is clear to me.

But if this issue and the Book of Abraham sift people’s hearts as to understanding the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost and personal revelation in their own lives consistent with true doctrine voted on by the membership of the church as such, then that is completely fine with me. Sifting hearts and desires and attitudes is absolutely needful for the complete scope of the plan of eternal progression. People can make mistakes and the work of the Lord still be carried out.

 

[Finrock]

This, as you well know, is incomplete. I read over at the MADB board that your lesson on personal apostasy is now being taught at a Sunday school near you. From that lesson:

“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).”

Do you need me, a Mormon apostate, to give you examples?

• Women are to have only one piercing in each ear…a Mormon friend of mine had multiple piercings in her ears, she removed them for good the DAY your Church taught this in its General Conference.
• Many years ago I had a data entry job. Your prophet taught that women should “leave their keyboards”. My Mormon co-worker quit within a month.

Please show me where these teachings are in your standard works, or official proclamations, or have ever been voted on.

Again, it actually isn’t incomplete. The pattern is set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants. The pattern for establishing binding doctrine has been confirmed many times over by Church leadership. It has been reconfirmed in modern times in a statement by the Church found on the lds.org website.

I think you’ve misunderstood President Lee’s counsel. First, the counsel from President Lee wasn’t intended as an exhaustive explanation as to how doctrine becomes binding and official for the whole church, but rather it was explaining that we can judge if what someone is saying is true doctrine by comparing it to the scriptures or to the inspired words of a prophet of God. Also, your quote from Harold B. Lee comes after the section in the lesson that speaks of common consent. So, you have to take all of these things in context. One principle is not in exclusion of the other.

To further provide the proper context, consider how President Lee also taught the pattern I’ve described to you:

“The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as a revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church” (Harold B. Lee, Emphasis added).

One of the reasons why I created the thread “Understanding Mormon Doctrine” was to put all of these principles that determine how doctrine is established in to one, condensed, post so that those who aren’t members of the Church (and maybe even some who are) could easily understand what constitutes official and bindind doctrine, and what does not. My explanation is indeed complete, because it incorporates all the relevant principles and scriptures.

In this case, you seem unwillingly to accept the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ has a clear pattern by which doctrine becomes official and binding and instead you want to assert your own opinion. All I can say is what I’ve presented to you on what constitutes binding and official doctrine in the Church, is complete and absolutely factual.

The examples you provided are guidelines and counsel based on doctrinal principles. Without a complete understanding of your examples, it appears to me that the principles in play are, vanity and motherhood. In and of themselves, they don’t constitute doctrines. Here we have a situation where a practice or how a principle is to be implemented is being confused for an actual principle/doctrine. In your example you have guidance that tells us what “ought” to be done, but not what must be done.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Good evening Christian55!

There are still issues that remain. As quoted below, you named, The Standard Works, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith, as “true, official, and binding doctrines” of the Mormon Church:

Please reference post #161 from this thread.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Zundrah]

Good evening Christian55!

Please reference post #161 from this thread.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Hi Finrock,

Are you new here, I don’t think I’ve spoken to you yet, have I?

xxx zundrah xxx

 

[RebeccaJ]

The examples you provided are guidelines and counsel based on doctrinal principles. Without a complete understanding of your examples, it appears to me that the principles in play are, vanity and motherhood. In and of themselves, they don’t constitute doctrines. Here we have a situation where a practice or how a principle is to be implemented is being confused for an actual principle/doctrine. In your example you have guidance that tells us what “ought” to be done, but not what must be done.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

What “ought to be done”. Yes, and tell me what sort of Mormon does not listen to your prophet, who you believe to be the mouthpiece of GOD, and do what “ought to be done”. Tell me what Mormon is not listening to your prophet at your semi-annual conference, and pouring over his every word in your Ensign magazine, and not doing what “ought to be done”.

You obviously have found ways to be LDS without “listening to the prophet’s voice”. And you have this strange idea that Mormons of BY’s time didn’t either. Are you a NOM?

I will say, that this is indeed good news. If there are more Mormons like you, there is hope that the blind will see.

 

[Christian55]

Good evening Christian55!

Please reference post #161 from this thread.

 

[Christian55]

Continued-Questions 6-7 for Finrock.

Good evening Christian55!
Please reference post #161 from this thread.

"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

**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.
**
(7.) 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.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Finrock]

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

 

[denver_faithful]

To the OP

The bottom line is this. We believe that we are correct, and you believe that you are correct. That does not and should not prevent our churches from ecumenical progress.

Peace In Christ

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon RebeccaJ. I hope you are doing well.

What “ought to be done”. Yes, and tell me what sort of Mormon does not listen to your prophet, who you believe to be the mouthpiece of GOD, and do what “ought to be done”. Tell me what Mormon is not listening to your prophet at your semi-annual conference, and pouring over his every word in your Ensign magazine, and not doing what “ought to be done”.

You obviously have found ways to be LDS without “listening to the prophet’s voice”. And you have this strange idea that Mormons of BY’s time didn’t either. Are you a NOM?

I will say, that this is indeed good news. If there are more Mormons like you, there is hope that the blind will see.

You are misrepresenting my position and have changed the subject. The subject matter I was dealing with and responding to had to do with how new doctrine or revelation that is binding on the whole church gets established. Your examples are guidance from prophets on how to implement current doctrines. Of course we listen to our prophets and the guidance they give because we believe they are the mouthpiece of God on earth. But, this isn’t the same as a prophet establishing new doctrine, such as in the case of opening up the priesthood to all male members of the Church.

Again, you are taking guidance and counsel given to understand current and established doctrines and confusing it with how new doctrine becomes binding and official.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

Good afternoon RebeccaJ. I hope you are doing well.

You are misrepresenting my position and have changed the subject. The subject matter I was dealing with and responding to had to do with how new doctrine or revelation that is binding on the whole church gets established. Your examples are guidance from prophets on how to implement current doctrines. Of course we listen to our prophets and the guidance they give because we believe they are the mouthpiece of God on earth. But, this isn’t the same as a prophet establishing new doctrine, such as in the case of opening up the priesthood to all male members of the Church.

Again, you are taking guidance and counsel given to understand current and established doctrines and confusing it with how new doctrine becomes binding and official.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

No, I am not changing the subject. We are talking about one position, that you claim to be prophetic. What I hear you saying is that things like how many earrings to wear, people listen to as a prophet speaking, but what is said about GOD is ignored.