No Crosses on Mormon Temples...

[mormon_fool]

ben_dy:

fool,
Excellent answer! I’m out of the hospital & physical rehab after nearly two months and this is my first message since I’ve returned - spent two months reading - and writing a few rebuttals to - all of the 2004-2005 FARMS papers I could get my hands on (and was also ‘fortunate’ to have friends, knowing my obsession with the LDS, bring me a copy of Leaving the Saints - more on that at a later time…

Welcome back! I am happy to hear that you made it through OK. I will be thrilled to see some of your feedback to FARMS. As for the Martha Nibley Beck book, I trust you have heard both sides of the story?

As I said, I think your answer is terrific but I’m wondering if you agree that the symbols were borrowed from the Freemasons?

Some of them anyway. Sometimes a similarity to Masonry is because both groups are drawing from the same material in the Bible. I am not an expert in Masonry so I can’t say a lot, but of course there is borrowing. The attitude of the early mormon-masons was that masonry was an apostate version of the real thing. Restoring temple activity was analagous to restoring Christianity. Some existing beliefs and practices were borrowed and adapted from the ambient culture, others appear to be stuff that can only be found in forgotten ancient literature. Naturally non-believers will emphasize the former and believers the latter, but as far as I am concerned both are true.

The best accessible source on the connection between mormonism and masonism is Greg Kearney’s Podcast.

It looks to me as if they were… I see no reason to fault the choice, but it seems as glaring as the eye & pyramid on the back of the dollar bill?

I can’t say what those symbols mean in free-masonry, but the eye symbol is little different. The LDS eye is partially obscurred by a veil, which has added significance for an LDS when they stop and think about it. From the Oman article p. 48-51.

The All Seeing Eye

Above the second window in the east and west central towers is an eye looking out at us from below a veil of pleated fabric (fig 31). Surrounding the eye is another aureole of light depicted by a raised oval with outward shooting rays. The keystone in the arch above is blank. This is the all seeing eye a symbol frequently used in pioneer Utah. This symbol reminded the saints that the eye of the Lord was upon them and that all that they did should be in accordance with the will of the Lord. John Taylor noted it penetrates and is enabled to weigh the actions and motives of the children of men. In Proverbs we are told the eyes of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good. The all seeing eye of the Lord was often used on church cooperative buildings with the phrase “Holiness to the Lord” arched over it. Sometimes the all seeing eye was used in pioneer tabernacles. One is located over the choir seats in the St. George tabernacle. However the all seeing eyes on the temple differ from all the rest. Most all seeing eyes have eyebrows above them but those on the Salt Lake temple are depicted looking out from beneath a pleated veil. Veils are used to separate the sacred from the profane, the spiritual from the carnal, truth from confusion, the Lord from mankind. The veil separating man and the Lord is removed only on rare occasions of great faith and obedience: (see Ether 3:19-20 and D&C 101:23).

Your thoughts? I hope that I will be back here frequently!

Once again welcome back! I missed you, while you are gone. I am going to try and discipline myself to post mainly on weekends, but I will keep an eye out for your posts.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

This is absolutely not true

You will have to be more specific. I humbly suggest using “I don’t agree with this stance” instead of appealing to absolute truth.

“canonical scripture” in the LDS church changes when necessary to match what they want.

Amen to this. It is unfortunate that other churches don’t have this option.

TO claim this great benefit of modern, ongoing revelation and then say it doesn’t count unless the members vote on it is ridiculous.

Teachings don’t count in a binding sense unless members vote on it. The LDS church is run on theodemocratic principles. It thrives on the idea that God can reveal to individual members the prophet’s revelation or teaching is true. Call it the law of multiple witnesses that places a control on revelation through the use individual and collective discernment. As D&C 104 says:
D&C 26: 2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

To claim that BY might have had a revelation but it wasn’t canonized so it doesn’t count epitomizes this.

This is just the way the LDS church has operated from the beginning. Prophets don’t receive revelation infallibly. As you your self are fond of quoting:

“*Some revelations are of God; some revelations are of man; and some revelations are of the devil.” *(Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 165)

Why have a prophet then if you can’t trust his revelations?

Because through study and obtaining a personal revelation to trust a prophet’s teachings an individual can be led to the truth much more economically than every man for himself. Worse yet is being in situation where individuals or prophets can’t receive any revelation at all.

(JS and his “some are of the devil” remark comes to mind)

I am responding as I read, so I just noticed this. If only you could figure out how to actually apply this in away that doesn’t weaken you own argument.

You would have us believe that LDS prophets can say “Thus saith the Lord” or issue authoratative statements in their position and it’s just some guys personal opinion.

My actual position is that a prophet can be making a scriptural based remark and it would be highly appropriate to credit the Lord for providing the foundation for that remark. Better that than taking credit all for himself.

Further you would have us believe that the Lord promises to never let these “prophets” lead the church astray but the fact that they DID on numerous occasions

“I don’t agree with this stance”. I do not believe the LDS church has been led astray in the sense that Wilford Woodruff used the term (which isn’t canonical anyway). For Wilford “astray” meant doing something seriously enough wrong to cause a loss or reassignment of priesthood keys. He was addressing the issue of splinter groups breaking off from the church because they thought it was astray.

To cause an entire church to engage in practices that are in direct contradiction of canonized scripture would certainly appear to be leading the church astray.

The church did not engage in a practice, in regards to the ban, that they thought was in direct contradiction to the canon. Rather they thought the canon justified the ban.

Let’s look at some of the attempts to reconcilet this. Spencer W. Kimball NEVER said that BY was wrong on race nor did overturn racist doctrine. He merely “updated” the practice.

And updating the practice jetisons the “doctrines” used to support it, even in the church collective is slow to realise the implications. And it doesn’t matter what Spencer Kimball didn’t say because such correction quietly happens over the process of time. Old non-binding doctrine out. New non-binding doctrine in. Doctrinal housekeeping takes a backseat to administering the urgent matters of church.

Read what he wrote in the OD. He just says the day has come when you don’t have to ban anyone from the preisthood on account of race anymore. BTW where is this “revelation” that he alludes to and why isn’t it canonized?

Strictly speaking the canon doesn’t have any “revelations” they only have “records of revelation”. Revelation can be a multi-media experience that transcends words. It is up to the prophet to communicate the implications of the experience to the members.

 

[mormon_fool]

As we go on down the list of “symbols” (which I think includes pictures and such) why is it that Mormons contuinue to portray the myth of Joseph Smith Jr. “translating” the plates by looking over them with his scribe nearby. We know from LDS historical souces that he had a rock in a hat over his face and the plates “hidden outside”. The symbols change in the LDS church to be more “faith promoting”. What “really” was the Urim and Thummim? (answer - the seer stone)

This isn’t my understanding of the translation process which varied over time. When Joesph translated with Martin Harris, at least to begin with, there was a curtain in between them and Joseph Smith used the Nephite interpretters which came to be called the “Urim and Thummin”. Later as his prophetic prowess increased he was able to translate from less powerful instruments called seer stones, which also are appropriately called Urim and Thummin. That is the stage of translation that the hat came in. So the process was by no means uniform and the descriptions are mixed so we should grant the church a little freedom to decide which details to portray that does justice to the sacredness of the experience.

–fool

 

[amgid]

Mike_D30:

You clearly lied and said that only punctuation changes have been made to the book of mormon, it’s a lie amgid, I called you on it. You only admitted that there were revisions with significant changes to the book of mormon AFTER I proved you wrong.

All right, let’s compare what you said with what I said. In post #58 you made this comment:

. . . one of many changes to the book of mormon. The so called most perfect book ever, (yet it was edited more than 4,000 times since the 1830 version).

This comment may be technically true, but in fact highly deceptive and dishonest. Its purpose is to tell a massive lie disguised as truth. It implies that more than 4,000 changes have been made in the Book of Mormon since it was first published in 1830, each of which would undermine its credibility as divinely inspired book. Now if 99% of those changes are either punctuational changes, or corrections of printer’s errors or copyist’s errors in previous editions, then obviously that is not a true assertion, because none of those changes would undermine its credibility as an inspired book. That is a lie on a massive scale, disguised as truth. To that false assertion I had made the following reply in post #62:

Yea, 4,000 punctuation changes! And you think that is not dishonest? God didn’t punctuate the Book of Mormon you know. The original punctuation was done by the printer, who was not even a Mormon. That punctuation was bad, and has had to be revised many times.

That is a true assertion. There are probably more than 4,000 punctuational changes made in the Book of Mormon. As I had already explained, the number of verbal changes made in the Book of Mormon that make a significant change in the meaning of the text, or marginally affect its doctrine, are only about five or six in number; and most of those were made by Joseph Smith himself, who was the original translator of the book, and had every authority to make such a change. He made those changes when he published the second edition of the book. Furthermore, your assertion that I had said that “only punctuation changes have been made to the Book of Mormon” is a fabricated lie and complete falsehood. I never said that. Show me where I made such an assertion? Then, after all of that falsehood and deception, in post #73, which is the post I am currently replying to, you compound it all with the following comments:

This is the same tactics missionaries use, and apologists for mormonism. They will lie right to your face then when challenged with proof, explain it away by saying. Well joseph smitth made those changes, and it was only a handful. Sorry but a divinely inspired book, and “the most perfect book in the world” doesn’t need voer 4,000 edits, and significant changes to the content therein. But of course you have to lie about it. But when all esle fails attack me.

In other words, all of that explanation I had given had fallen on deaf ears, and you are still repeating the same falsehoods, deceptions and lies, brazen facedly as though nothing had happened. You appear to be a compulsive liar. You can’t help telling lies. That is an illness. It is not a healthy state of mind to be in. You should go and see the doctor. There must be a treatment for it. You really owe it to yourself to get that problem sorted out.

It’s such a common tactic you use, all moromon apologists use it, Lord knows they can’t use thier scripture to back up their arguments, they are forced to “lie for the Lord” right?

Just who are you trying to kid, I would like to know? You seem to think that everybody else on this planet is stupid except you. You are treating them like idiots. Well I have bad news for you. They are not. They can see through your duplicity just as well as I can.

If you want to know what the real “truth” is I will tell you. The real truth is that present day Christianity is apostate; and you as a deceitful, self-proclaimed representative of that apostate institution are in no position to tell the rest of the world what real Christianity is.

amgid

 

[majick275]

This sounds like an accused serial killer claiming that he only killed 3 people and one of them didn’t die until later. Come on. The LDS scriptures have been changed. Their meaning has been changed. This has been done to support changing doctrines and in some cases to clean up obvious inconsistencies. Providing explanations of how Mormon prophets aren’t always prophets, their revelations are miscopied, weren’t put to a vote, etc. seem ridiculous gyrations to allow folks to just pick and choose what they want about Mormonism. Now we know in practice that’s not true so why the ruse? It’s so that controversial doctrines can be talked around, saved for later, and flat out spun in a relentless affort to gain converts. It is obvious from any angle you want to view it that the LDS church has acted under the express direction of it’s “prophets” against it’s own canonized scriptures. It is also just obvious that the scriptures and the practices were later changed. Don’t drink the kool-aid. It’s a controlling cult based on the imagination of a womanizing con man.

 

[Mike_D30]

majick275:

Come on. The LDS scriptures have been changed. Their meaning has been changed. This has been done to support changing doctrines and in some cases to clean up obvious inconsistencies. Providing explanations of how Mormon prophets aren’t always prophets, their revelations are miscopied, weren’t put to a vote, etc. seem ridiculous gyrations to allow folks to just pick and choose what they want about Mormonism.

Thank you, that’s all I was saying, the Book of Mormon has been changed many times, Amgid seems hell bent on defending her lie that they were only punctuation changes (she tried to pass this off to the people here at CAF until I showed where that is inaccurate), which I’ve shown to be unequiviacably false. She twists every word I post, but it’s transparent. The Book of Mormon was changed, significantly in content over the years. That’s a fact, just because you don’t like it repeated Amgid, doesn’t make it any less a fact.

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

You will have to be more specific. I humbly suggest using “I don’t agree with this stance” instead of appealing to absolute truth.

But this isn’t subjective. We have irrefutable examples of the opposite occuring.
mormon fool:

Amen to this. It is unfortunate that other churches don’t have this option.

uhh…If you think that’s a good thing then we certainly disagree there. God has stated in numerous scriptures that He doesn’t change and neither does truth.
mormon fool:

Teachings don’t count in a binding sense unless members vote on it. The LDS church is run on theodemocratic principles. It thrives on the idea that God can reveal to individual members the prophet’s revelation or teaching is true. Call it the law of multiple witnesses that places a control on revelation through the use individual and collective discernment. As D&C 104 says:
D&C 26: 2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

Please… The teachings obviously count. WE have multiple examples. The Temple, the Word of Wisdom on down to how ordinances are performed. There are many things that are done in a binding manner through the direction and teaching of general authorities. As to thoedemocracy…that’s a myth. The LDS is very authoritarian and the members vote is nothing more than their comitment to continue to obey it has NEVER been an imprimatur or nihil obstat equivalent. We could spend all day swapping scriptures from LDS sources about when the prophet speaks it’s the word of the lord and the members have a duty to obey and so on. The actual practices have shown that the teachings DO count, more so than canonized scripture in the case of polygamy. There are also examples of scriptures changing WITHOUT the vote of the members. (removal of LoF) So I am convinced that it’s a dodge to avoid controversial doctrines and teachings when LDS say only standard works are binding and the personal revelation of the members is some kind of check/balance on the exercise of authority by it’s leaders. Try objecting to a vote and see what happens.
mormon fool:

This is just the way the LDS church has operated from the beginning. Prophets don’t receive revelation infallibly. As you your self are fond of quoting:

“*Some revelations are of God; some revelations are of man; and some revelations are of the devil.” *(Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 165)

aaah yes, the difference between LDS prophets and real Prophets of God. Real prophets DO receive infallible revelation. From a pragmatic sense there is little if any benefit to having a prophet if any and all of his revelations have to be “discerned” by each member through the Holy Ghost. I agree it’s the way the LDS have operated. I just believe it’s proof of false prophets.

 

[majick275]

(continued)
mormon fool:

Because through study and obtaining a personal revelation to trust a prophet’s teachings an individual can be led to the truth much more economically than every man for himself. Worse yet is being in situation where individuals or prophets can’t receive any revelation at all.

Yet you have shown that in a practical sense it IS every man for himself. Trusting everything the LDS prophet says has been proven wrong by your own sources. The Book of Hebrews does a good jhob of explaining the differnces brought about by Jesus in the new covenant. the Spiritual Gift of Prophecy is still vey much a part of the Church. The “office” of prophet is no longer needed. It as obsolete as the Temple. We have all the prophecy we need. Now we must seek to understand and apply it.
mormon fool:

I am responding as I read, so I just noticed this. If only you could figure out how to actually apply this in away that doesn’t weaken you own argument.

yeah we all do that. I really don’t think this weakens my position though as I see it epitomizing the real problem with LDS prophecy. It can’t be trusted even if you trust the prophet. Every time he says something you have to ascertain if it’s opinion or revelation. (with Gordon B. Hinkley’s remarks on the subject that’s hard to do since he claims to just get “preceptions”) THEN you have to discern if it’s “true” revelation from God. I just don’t see this as the way God explained our salvation in the Bible.
mormon fool:

My actual position is that a prophet can be making a scriptural based remark and it would be highly appropriate to credit the Lord for providing the foundation for that remark. Better that than taking credit all for himself.

Now we are back to not being able to trust prophets i nthe LDS church. When are they “giving the Lord credit” versus actually “revealing” something?

“I don’t agree with this stance”. I do not believe the LDS church has been led astray in the sense that Wilford Woodruff used the term (which isn’t canonical anyway). For Wilford “astray” meant doing something seriously enough wrong to cause a loss or reassignment of priesthood keys. He was addressing the issue of splinter groups breaking off from the church because they thought it was astray.

That is quibbling at best. Seriously…redefining “astray” this sounds like Clinton. Leading the church astray would sure seem to include directing a global violation of canonized scripture. We disagree on this for sure.
mormon fool:

The church did not engage in a practice, in regards to the ban, that they thought was in direct contradiction to the canon. Rather they thought the canon justified the ban.

I was referring to the practice of polygamy when it was prohibited by scripture. But there are certainly other examples. In any case we can see where the LDS church practiced what wa sin opposition to it’s scriptures ans in some cases just changes the scriptures later to reconcile it.
mormon fool:

And updating the practice jetisons the “doctrines” used to support it, even in the church collective is slow to realise the implications. And it doesn’t matter what Spencer Kimball didn’t say because such correction quietly happens over the process of time. Old non-binding doctrine out. New non-binding doctrine in. Doctrinal housekeeping takes a backseat to administering the urgent matters of church.

non-binding? please…it’s scripture AND it’s global practice that includes ordinances deemed vital to exaltation by the LDS scriptures. to “jetison” doctrine is certainly LDS but I don’t see it as godly.
mormon fool:

Strictly speaking the canon doesn’t have any “revelations” they only have “records of revelation”. Revelation can be a multi-media experience that transcends words. It is up to the prophet to communicate the implications of the experience to the members.

But we see the patterns in it and can tell the difference between “revealing” something and just telling us that something was revealed. By this logic then we are back to the question of what is binding since we have LDS prophets claiming things that could certainly be considered “communicating their experience to the members”.

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

This isn’t my understanding of the translation process which varied over time. When Joesph translated with Martin Harris, at least to begin with, there was a curtain in between them and Joseph Smith used the Nephite interpretters which came to be called the “Urim and Thummin”. Later as his prophetic prowess increased he was able to translate from less powerful instruments called seer stones, which also are appropriately called Urim and Thummin. That is the stage of translation that the hat came in. So the process was by no means uniform and the descriptions are mixed so we should grant the church a little freedom to decide which details to portray that does justice to the sacredness of the experience.

–fool

There is reason to believe that the seer stone WAS the U&M. (Quinn Mormonism and the Magical World View) A reading of the available historical documents would indicate to me at least that Harris described the stine in the hat with the plates outside. In any case you quickly bring us to one of my main beefs with the LDS church. Their “freedom” to decide which details to portray. This I find VERY dishonest. Tell the truth, The James Faust style truth. Why are so many facts about LDS history suppressed? What is “faith promoting” is in may cases significantly less accurate as we don’t see it recorded until years after the fact. Congregational doctrine is allowed to make the controversial things just not get talked about until they are forgotten and then a new “faith promoting” version starts making the rounds but plausible deniability is maintained because it’s not “binding doctrine”. Joseph Smith Jr. was a charlatan who was practicing folk magic to start the LDS church.

 

[Mike_D30]

amgid:

You appear to be a compulsive liar. You can’t help telling lies. That is an illness. It is not a healthy state of mind to be in. You should go and see the doctor. There must be a treatment for it. You really owe it to yourself to get that problem sorted out.

amgid

amgid

I respectfully ask you to point out where I lied. Or cease to call into question my integrity. I have clearly point out where you attempted to lie to everyone here at CAF. By stating the Book of Mormon only had punctuation changes. You’ve tried every trick to get around your obvious smoke screen.

So again please point out my compulsive lies amgid. I said the Book of Mormon was edited 4,000 times which it was. Then you said they were all punctuation changes. I showed where significant content was also altered from the 1830 version, which you agree with now. BUT you explain it away by saying, those passages were edited by Joseph Smith to clarify his position. So either way amgid you lied not me in this case.

I’m not a compulsive liar, I am a Christian. And again you should stop judging people over message boards DESIGNED for debate and apologetics, You are telling half truths and outright lies. I find Mormon teaching to be heretical and don’t want you enticing the people of this board with half-truths. They deserve to know the full story THIS IS A PRO-CATHOLIC SITE!. if you need to resort to the above nonsense to get your point home, you need to leave apologetics to the thicker skinned, because you sin by your attacks towards me.

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

fool,

Excellent answer! I’m out of the hospital & physical rehab after nearly two months and this is my first message since I’ve returned - spent two months reading - and writing a few rebuttals to - all of the 2004-2005 FARMS papers I could get my hands on (and was also ‘fortunate’ to have friends, knowing my obsession with the LDS, bring me a copy of Leaving the Saints - more on that at a later time…

As I said, I think your answer is terrific but I’m wondering if you agree that the symbols were borrowed from the Freemasons? It looks to me as if they were… I see no reason to fault the choice, but it seems as glaring as the eye & pyramid on the back of the dollar bill?

Your thoughts? I hope that I will be back here frequently!

Good to see you back Ben. We missed you! I hope you will be all right from now on, and can post more often.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Mike_D30:

amgid

I respectfully ask you to point out where I lied. Or cease to call into question my integrity. I have clearly point out where you attempted to lie to everyone here at CAF. By stating the Book of Mormon only had punctuation changes. You’ve tried every trick to get around your obvious smoke screen.

So again please point out my compulsive lies amgid. I said the Book of Mormon was edited 4,000 times which it was. Then you said they were all punctuation changes. I showed where significant content was also altered from the 1830 version, which you agree with now. BUT you explain it away by saying, those passages were edited by Joseph Smith to clarify his position. So either way amgid you lied not me in this case.

I’m not a compulsive liar, I am a Christian. And again you should stop judging people over message boards DESIGNED for debate and apologetics, You are telling half truths and outright lies. I find Mormon teaching to be heretical and don’t want you enticing the people of this board with half-truths. They deserve to know the full story THIS IS A PRO-CATHOLIC SITE!. if you need to resort to the above nonsense to get your point home, you need to leave apologetics to the thicker skinned, because you sin by your attacks towards me.

You still haven’t told me who you are trying to kid. I kinda like to know.

amgid

 

[Mike_D30]

amgid:

You still haven’t told me who you are trying to kid. I kinda like to know.

amgid

Amgid you accuse me, but you still can’t post anywhere where I lied rampantly like you claim. Please stop the attacks, They are representing you porrly, and I’m sure you’ll regret coming off the way you are.

If you wish to keep attacking me and calling me a liar who needs a doctor and prattling on like a child. send me a P.M. I could care less I’ll let it wash right off my back.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

But this isn’t subjective. We have irrefutable examples of the opposite occuring.

I did ask you to be specific what is “this” what is “absolutely untrue” in the text you quoted. I do not see any of claims that can be falsified with a counter-example or examples.

I will retract one mistatement because Brigham never said “Thus saith the Lord” in conjunction with giving his scripture interpretation on race.

But I was prepared to offer up 2 Ne. 28:30 (see IS. 28:10 or 13) as “Thus saith the Lord” example that quotes and expands on previous scripture. Generally, though, the phrase indicates new revelation.

uhh…If you think that’s a good thing then we certainly disagree there. God has stated in numerous scriptures that He doesn’t change and neither does truth.

The Isaiah text above offers a pretty good rebuttal to the notion that man always fully and historically comprehended God’s truth. So yes I will stand by thinking it is a good thing that the canon is updated after further is revealed.

Please… The teachings obviously count. WE have multiple examples. The Temple, the Word of Wisdom on down to how ordinances are performed. There are many things that are done in a binding manner through the direction and teaching of general authorities.

You can’t get away with using the vague “things” here. The authority for practices stem from delegation of the priesthood and not a text. A given practice has supporting teachings found in both canonical and non-canonical text. Supporting non-canonical teachings for a practice are not stand-alone binding teachings but dependant on how, if, when, and by/for whom the practice is practiced. Many of these non-canonical supporting teachings come from handbooks from the First Presidency which makes them “official doctrine”. I will grant that “racial doctrines” used to support the ban were at times elevated to “official doctrines” but I would not give them stand-alone binding status since they were frequently revised. I treat the Word of Wisdom add-ons the same way, they are “official doctrine” that becomes binding only because it is enforced in conjunction with a binding practice of going to the temple.

As to thoedemocracy…that’s a myth. The LDS is very authoritarian and the members vote is nothing more than their comitment to continue to obey it has NEVER been an imprimatur or nihil obstat equivalent.

I agree that there is no equivalent because LDS scriptures are not infallible. Nevertheless they are the highest source of doctrine that we hold ourselves publicly bound to before the world. Common consent has all kinds of repercussions in establishing how important items of doctrine are. The LDS church is more democratic than any church I know with members alternating all kinds of local callings. Councils are held on every level of church government. A church can be democratic and authoritarian at the same time as the LDS church shows nicely.

We could spend all day swapping scriptures from LDS sources about when the prophet speaks it’s the word of the lord and the members have a duty to obey and so on.

Yea, but I tend to take them all into account, including the ones that demonstrate that prophets are fallible, that records of revelation may contain error, that the individual member should be spiritually discerning, and about common consent; whereas you only account for a few passages.

The actual practices have shown that the teachings DO count,

Nobody said teachings don’t count. This is more of that dichotomous thinking that has been pointed out many times in your attempts to arbitrarily elevate any teaching to highest level while insisting your version of mormonism is the only correct one.

more so than canonized scripture in the case of polygamy.

Which further demonstrates binding practices have a life of their own independent of whether how well canonical doctrine supports it.

There are also examples of scriptures changing WITHOUT the vote of the members. (removal of LoF)

I am not sure I would include LoF as scripture. At best the LoF has the same status as the Bible Dictionary does now. There can be words published in a volume containing scripture without those words being scripture. The original notes of the 1834 distinguished betweens the “revelations” that were “true” and the “lectures” which were “profitable”. But even if a “decanonization” did happen without a vote, the equivalent is someone being released from a calling, which can happen without a vote. It just has to be announced like it was in conference.

 

[mormon_fool]

So I am convinced that it’s a dodge to avoid controversial doctrines and teachings when LDS say only standard works are binding.

Do to your counter-examples, I will nuance my remarks with: stand-alone binding doctrines are found only in the standard works. If you want to inflate something else into that stratosphere show that 1) a non-canonical teaching is intricately related to a binding practice, 2) that modifying or rejecting that teaching makes the practice null and void, 3) note who exactly is bound to the dependently binding teaching.

Try objecting to a vote and see what happens.

If I do, will you quit inflating 5th and 6th tier (non)doctrine to binding status?

aaah yes, the difference between LDS prophets and real Prophets of God. Real prophets DO receive infallible revelation.

It is easily demonstrated from a few cases that Real prophets have messed up while claiming to speak for the Lord. And that God uses multiple witness and reveals line upon line.

From a pragmatic sense there is little if any benefit to having a prophet if any and all of his revelations have to be “discerned” by each member through the Holy Ghost.

In a pragmatic sense it encourages everyone to seek after the Holy Ghost, which is way worth God’s effort to reveal things to those seeking Him. It is easier to discern a revelation is true than having to pay the price to receive it yourself.

 

[mormon_fool]

A thought on canonization. If majick is so worried about reversals in the LDS canon, why isn’t he worried about reversals in the canon under ECF’s? The canon in the first few centuries was much more in flux than the LDS canon has been. Whole books in, whole books out.

quote=majick275
Yet you have shown that in a practical sense it IS every man for himself.
[/quote]

In a very practical sense every man is responsible for seeking through praying, reading, studying, and weighing sources of doctrine for himself. Having a prophet facilitates finding the truth in a quicker manner and is more conducive to a community of believers staying unified than every man for himself.

The Spirit of Prophecy is still vey much a part of the Church.

In a very limited sense that disapoints some who sees prophets and apostles who could dispense public, normative, revelation in the Bible and wonders where they all went.

That is quibbling at best. Seriously…redefining “astray” this sounds like Clinton.

astray: wide: far from the intended target;

In the context of LDS theology “far from” would be a big mistake. Not a mistake as small as delayed housekeeping on publishing a new edition of scriptures. Or doing what God commanded them to when Jacob 2:30 already allows for exceptions. Joshua didn’t lead his people astray after carrying out a command to kill Canaanites despite Moses’s decalogue. Come up with a test that doesn’t invalidate a Biblical people.

But we see the patterns in it and can tell the difference between “revealing” something and just telling us that something was revealed.

Same thing to me.

By this logic then we are back to the question of what is binding since we have LDS prophets claiming things that could certainly be considered “communicating their experience to the members”.

The prophet will put it to a vote and if it passes it’s binding otherwise it isn’t.

–fool

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

A thought on canonization. If majick is so worried about reversals in the LDS canon, why isn’t he worried about reversals in the canon under ECF’s? The canon in the first few centuries was much more in flux than the LDS canon has been. Whole books in, whole books out.

I will never understand how Mormon’s who claim to be Christian, continually try to defend their faith by refuting the Bible, and calling into question its validity. If Mormon’s were truly Christians, this would be a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face…

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

I did ask you to be specific what is “this” what is “absolutely untrue” in the text you quoted. I do not see any of claims that can be falsified with a counter-example or examples.

Initially I was responding to this quote. My lack of specificity though is the result of my opinion that this should be expanded into so many areas that I simply don’t have room to post all here. For simplicity sake I would be willing to debate this one example on this thread. (mormon fool said:
*But even if he did have a revelation backing those quotes, it was never accepted as canonical scripture and hence not binding doctrine.
*) My point is that LDS binding doctrine as evidenced by actual practice reinforced by teachings and consistently communicated to the members in an authorataive manner is that binding doctrine is not and never has been restricted to canonized scripture. I further submit that this may in fact be moot as the scriptures have in some cases been changed to adapt to the doctrines.
mormon fool:

The Isaiah text above offers a pretty good rebuttal to the notion that man always fully and historically comprehended God’s truth. So yes I will stand by thinking it is a good thing that the canon is updated after further is revealed.

I am in agreement with progressive understandin/interpretation of scripture. I disagree with a changing canon. God told people to write things down or in some cases people wrote their experiences down. The words of that person and the words of the Lord should not be what changes. Correcting transalations, okay. Changing our understanding of how to apply scriptures, yes. Replacing entire sections that change doctrine sure seems manmade to me.
mormon fool:

You can’t get away with using the vague “things” here. The authority for practices stem from delegation of the priesthood and not a text. A given practice has supporting teachings found in both canonical and non-canonical text. Supporting non-canonical teachings for a practice are not stand-alone binding teachings but dependant on how, if, when, and by/for whom the practice is practiced. Many of these non-canonical supporting teachings come from handbooks from the First Presidency which makes them “official doctrine”. I will grant that “racial doctrines” used to support the ban were at times elevated to “official doctrines” but I would not give them stand-alone binding status since they were frequently revised. I treat the Word of Wisdom add-ons the same way, they are “official doctrine” that becomes binding only because it is enforced in conjunction with a binding practice of going to the temple.

I see this as quibbling. “official but not binding doctrine”? come on…“official but not doctrinal practices”… As you said, they are enforced that is in my definition binding. once again I am not as specific as you request because of space limitations. Here on this thread I would state that I see this applying to race, polygamy and the Temple. (just to narrow the scope here) If it’s directed by the authorized leaders of the church and enforced on the members I see it as binding doctrine regardless of it’s place in scripture.

 

[majick275]

(continued)
mormon fool:

I agree that there is no equivalent because LDS scriptures are not infallible. Nevertheless they are the highest source of doctrine that we hold ourselves publicly bound to before the world. Common consent has all kinds of repercussions in establishing how important items of doctrine are. The LDS church is more democratic than any church I know with members alternating all kinds of local callings. Councils are held on every level of church government. A church can be democratic and authoritarian at the same time as the LDS church shows nicely.

I disagree with you on this although admittedly this is subjective. High councils (according to the handbook of instuctions) “vote” only on what to recomend to the Stake President. He is bound to follow his own conscience and act unilaterally after hearing their counsel. Bishoprics are much the same and church courts as well. The councils recomend but the presiding priesthood authority makes the final decision. I see common consent as a rubber stamp, a comitment by the individual to support what the church has already decided. I would submit that democracy isn’t necessarily Gods’ plan and I would also claim that in my experience most protestant denominations (baptists, methodists, presbyterians) are far more democratic. I see much more “republican” (in contrast to democratic) councils in the RCC. Truly elected representatives sit on various parish and diocesan councils.
mormon fool:

Yea, but I tend to take them all into account, including the ones that demonstrate that prophets are fallible, that records of revelation may contain error, that the individual member should be spiritually discerning, and about common consent; whereas you only account for a few passages.

We gonna decide by numbers? I see proof - texting on your part. (as you often see on mine) I don’t see direct revelation as fallible. I don’t think LDS prophets have taken that stance either. In LDS history the “test” has been if the remarks were revelation or not. some assume this means canonized or not but as we have seen the changing canon makes that a weak argument. Individual discernment seems to elevate the personal revelations and dilute the importance of the “prophet”. Once again, if we have to have the Holy Ghost tells us every time if we should trust any of his words then I don’t see much value in this prophet and disagree with the claim that he won’t lead the church astray.
mormon fool:

Nobody said teachings don’t count. This is more of that dichotomous thinking that has been pointed out many times in your attempts to arbitrarily elevate any teaching to highest level while insisting your version of mormonism is the only correct one.

Not any teaching, just the ones that were enforced in practice by the leadership of the LDS church while claiming that were revealed and directed by God.
mormon fool:

Which further demonstrates binding practices have a life of their own independent of whether how well canonical doctrine supports it.

I agree with this statement, I see it as a bad thing.
mormon fool:

I am not sure I would include LoF as scripture. At best the LoF has the same status as the Bible Dictionary does now. There can be words published in a volume containing scripture without those words being scripture. The original notes of the 1834 distinguished betweens the “revelations” that were “true” and the “lectures” which were “profitable”. But even if a “decanonization” did happen without a vote, the equivalent is someone being released from a calling, which can happen without a vote. It just has to be announced like it was in conference.

Yet Lof WAS accepted into the D&C by common consent. Now you are saying that you don’t need common consent to decanonize scripture? Let’s be clear, there was no admin eror that put the LoF in . They stayed until 1921. That’s an awful long time for a curch claiming to be led by divine revelation to have “false doctrine” in their scriptures.

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

Do to your counter-examples, I will nuance my remarks with: stand-alone binding doctrines are found only in the standard works. If you want to inflate something else into that stratosphere show that 1) a non-canonical teaching is intricately related to a binding practice, 2) that modifying or rejecting that teaching makes the practice null and void, 3) note who exactly is bound to the dependently binding teaching.

I disagree with that stance. that which the authorized leaders of the LDS church enforce is binding. We have already seen how the LDS canon is not so authoratative as it can change in such way as to support significant doctrinal change and binding practices and authoratative teachings are not restricted to scripture.
mormon fool:

If I do, will you quit inflating 5th and 6th tier (non)doctrine to binding status?

first it’s second/third tier now 5th and 6th? I reject the notion that there are “tiers” in direction from the First presidency to the church. I have shown you collegial publications by the first presidency and quorum of twelve stating what is doctrine, I have shown you directives that were enforced.(ones that determined one’s ability to go to the temple and thus by LDS definition DID affect their exaltation) You respond with a variation of ad hominem by claiming some lower “tier”.
mormon fool:

It is easily demonstrated from a few cases that Real prophets have messed up while claiming to speak for the Lord. And that God uses multiple witness and reveals line upon line.

I disagree. I want to know where a real prophet was told something by the Lord, revealed it publicly and was wrong. LDS teaching requires these multiple witnesses (many of which now seem to be lacking in credibility) and line upon line concept. (at least the LDS interpretation of milk before meat appears different) Progressive teaching is understandable, complete reversals are not.
mormon fool:

In a pragmatic sense it encourages everyone to seek after the Holy Ghost, which is way worth God’s effort to reveal things to those seeking Him. It is easier to discern a revelation is true than having to pay the price to receive it yourself.

Okay, but at some point we need an aithoratative source, a deposit of faith that we can trust. LDS scriptures don’t fit this because they are subject to radical change.