Question about Prophets

[TexanKnight]

I do not post this anger or belittle. I post it as a question. Following are quotes from LDS prophets. How can anyone claim that these men receive their direction directly from God?

And before any LDS claims that BY, for example, was not speaking as a Prophet, let me refresh your memory:

“I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom…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.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95)

and

I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 161.)

Now, on to some quotes:

“Emma took that revelation [about plural marriage], supposing she had all there was, went to the fireplace and put it in, and put the candle under it and burned it, and she thought that was the end of it, and she will be damned as sure as she is a living woman.”

(Aug 9, 1874, Journal of Discourses 17: pg 159.)

Do you really believe she is damned?

“The Devil would like to rule part of the time but I am determin (sic) He shall not rule at all and Negros shall not rule us.” (Wilford Woodruffs Journal. Undated entry between 4 Jan and 8 Feb 1852, pg 97-99)

“…no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289)

Really?

“When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 218). “The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115). Note: the late Bruce McConkie who was a member of the First Council of the Seventy stated “There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events…” (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742)

This is simply unacceptable.

“I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51)

“…and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is Antichrist.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 312).

So we are from the anti-Christ?

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken – He is our Father, and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50).

I know this is is an oldie, but still…how could a prophet of God teach this?

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).

wow.

“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.)

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

Now, if a man truly converses with God, would he actually say these things?

This is just a small sampling of quotes by BY (and a couple of others). But how can you believe these come from a true prophet?

In His Grip

 

[Trishie]

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Prophecy%2C_Prophet%2C_and_Prophetess

As you see even in the above article, there are many false prophets.
Even those who periodically tell us the date for the world’s end are false prophets, as is more than clear when the date passes without event.
All these false prophets are best ignored, as are the occasional false visionaries.
Theis is why as Catholics we focus on what is true and learn from the gospels and letters of the apostles, the Catechism (which is available in full online.)

In obedience to the bible:

**“Have nothing to do with the pointless philosophical discussions and antagonistic beliefs of the ‘knowledge’
which is not knowledge at all;
by adopting this, some have gone right away from the faith.
Grace be with you.” **[1 Timothy 6 20-21]

** “The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching,
people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes;
and instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.” **[2 Timothy 3:3-5]

 

[Miriam1947]

 

[Heuchler]

Joseph Smith also predicted that the world would end in appr. 1890 (I think). I would argue that this prediction was wrong.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

TexanKnight

Nice Job & thank you for your work - I’ve learned from your posts. I’ve mentioned early sources several times on other posts like 1830 Book of Mormon, D & C, Millennial Star Edtions etc. When you compare originals - BOM with a new edition, there are nearly 4000 changes. We know if you change even a single letter or word “a” “the” etc you can alter a meaning tremendously. Quotes you have presented speak for themselves. We are not attacking PEOPLE, we are presenting historical documents that tell a different story than what LDS faithful are lead to believe is true. Once again, thank you:thumbsup:

 

[TheExorcist]

I do not post this anger or belittle. I post it as a question. Following are quotes from LDS prophets.

You’ve kinda hit the nail on the head on why I’ve left (spiritually if not physically) the LDS church. You’ve just listed a sampling but we could have pulled out hundreds more! According to current Mormons church doctrine is extremely fluid and none of these statements carry any weight.

 

[simspt]

I do not post this anger or belittle. I post it as a question. Following are quotes from LDS prophets. How can anyone claim that these men receive their direction directly from God?

And before any LDS claims that BY, for example, was not speaking as a Prophet, let me refresh your memory:

“I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom…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.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95)

and

I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 161.)

Now, on to some quotes:

“Emma took that revelation [about plural marriage], supposing she had all there was, went to the fireplace and put it in, and put the candle under it and burned it, and she thought that was the end of it, and she will be damned as sure as she is a living woman.”

(Aug 9, 1874, Journal of Discourses 17: pg 159.)

Do you really believe she is damned?

“The Devil would like to rule part of the time but I am determin (sic) He shall not rule at all and Negros shall not rule us.” (Wilford Woodruffs Journal. Undated entry between 4 Jan and 8 Feb 1852, pg 97-99)

“…no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289)

Really?

“When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 218). “The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115). Note: the late Bruce McConkie who was a member of the First Council of the Seventy stated “There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events…” (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742)

This is simply unacceptable.

“I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51)

“…and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is Antichrist.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 312).

So we are from the anti-Christ?

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken – He is our Father, and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50).

I know this is is an oldie, but still…how could a prophet of God teach this?

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).

wow.

“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.)

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

Now, if a man truly converses with God, would he actually say these things?

This is just a small sampling of quotes by BY (and a couple of others). But how can you believe these come from a true prophet?

In His Grip

In the Didache written around 100 the author seems to have already been a little fed up with some of the prophets that were moving from church to church apparently celebrating the Eucharist. The author gives some pragmatic advice stating that if the prophets ask for money or want to stay more than 3 days they are probably are not legit…

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

Joseph Smith:

A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such

 

[grandfather]

You’ve kinda hit the nail on the head on why I’ve left (spiritually if not physically) the LDS church. You’ve just listed a sampling but we could have pulled out hundreds more! According to current Mormons church doctrine is extremely fluid and none of these statements carry any weight.

If doctine is fluid, changeable once it is reaslized that correction is needed due to error or internal contradiction, then it is impossible to know that doctrine in place at any given time will not be overrided, overruled, overturned and replaced by something else tomorrow.

It is impossible to know that what you are being taught or believe is true in any given age.

This is not simply a problem with Mormonism, but with all Protestant sects. They all come about as a result of some internal doctrinal dispute within one denomination or another. The doctrinal division is endless. The best explanation of these separations is that all these separated sects agree on the major doctrines. I don’t know if that is true or not, but if it is then they are saying they divided their houses in disobedience to Christ’s command for unity over minor disagreements.

Mormonism supposedly came about by their founder wondering about how there could be so many disputing sects and being told they all were wrong. So the founder of Mormonism set himself up as the one that had it right. I tihnk he died in a gunfight.

His successor claimed his wife is damned to hell. It is confounding that anyone could see this history and remain in this religion.

 

[theidler]

Well done for digging up the quotes. Some of them are downright frightening.
Being raised Seventh-Day Adventist, I know what it’s like to be in a sect with a self-professed prophet - when he or she makes a statement that never happens, is downright absurd, or the like, it’s funny to watch the scramble by the sect to cover it up or use sophistry to say that he or she didn’t mean it like that.
How can you remain in a religion like this even despite of everything? I would think only willful blindness. Fear of shunning maybe.
I know I still struggle everyday with my adventist upbringing for sure.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

I’m starting to see a pattern through the forum of judging the beliefs of others by Catholic interpretation, then complaining it doesn’t make sense.
In this case, for example, you all seem to be wilfully ignoring three things:
Firstly that Latter Day Saints do not believe in prophetic infallibility
Secondly my quote above
And Thirdly that the things that are alway jumped on as prophetic statements, have never been adopted by the church as doctrine.

But i know these things have been pointed out before, so I don’t hold out much hope hat anyone will take any notice this time either.

 

[grandfather]

I’m starting to see a pattern through the forum of judging the beliefs of others by Catholic interpretation, then complaining it doesn’t make sense.
In this case, for example, you all seem to be wilfully ignoring three things:
Firstly that Latter Day Saints do not believe in prophetic infallibility
Secondly my quote above
And Thirdly that the things that are alway jumped on as prophetic statements, have never been adopted by the church as doctrine.

But i know these things have been pointed out before, so I don’t hold out much hope hat anyone will take any notice this time either.

Brigham Young was your prophet. What authority does Mormonism’s prophet hold? He said everything he ever spoke was as reliable as scripture. He said his wife was doomed to hell for her response to the institution of polygamy, burning his written declaration. If he does not have authrority to define doctrine who does?

Mormons were polygamists. They embraced the doctrine of polygamy and followed it as a religious practice. They must have accepted the authority of their prophets as doctrine to become polygamists. Did they accept that and reject other things he says? This was Mormon doctrine based on the fact that they historically were polygamists as part of their religion, as Christians say polygamy is forbidden by their religion and condemn it. The Mormon practice was changed at a later date, by some other prophet. Might they reembrace it in the future if some new prophet or leadership wishes?

They also believed other things you now reject.

It is difficult to make the case that this stuff was never doctrine. Who changed the polygamist practice and by what authority? If the prophet does not define doctrine, but the church does, how does that work? What process, what committee, what person says this is doctrine, or this is no longer doctrine? Who overrules your prophet or past prophet?

Whether or not you take BY’s statements and what he said of his own authority and statements as determining doctrine, you can not deny that your prophet said it all. It is in the historical reconrd. He is a major historical figure in the earliest formative days of your religion, one of your heroes.

Suppose someone cam along today and started a religion. This religion was based on a vision of the founder purportedly given by an angel and some tablets that are vanished. The religion has a person who inherits the position of the founder. What would you say of anyone who makes the same claims and says the same things as the early prophets of this religion today? Would you follow them?

Anyone who would say and do these very bizarre things and believe them is dillusional or mentally deranged. If you reject the man who was there to lead and form your religion, what he said and believed, and the practices of the earliest followers of your religion, you reject that religion.

You have inherited a new and different and everchanging religion.

 

[theidler]

I’m starting to see a pattern through the forum of judging the beliefs of others by Catholic interpretation, then complaining it doesn’t make sense.
In this case, for example, you all seem to be wilfully ignoring three things:
Firstly that Latter Day Saints do not believe in prophetic infallibility
Secondly my quote above
And Thirdly that the things that are alway jumped on as prophetic statements, have never been adopted by the church as doctrine.

But i know these things have been pointed out before, so I don’t hold out much hope hat anyone will take any notice this time either.

On the contrary,

1. With the bizarre statements of some of your prophets, apostles, etc. I don’t think anyone is saying they are infallible. I would simply contend with you on the basis of reason and history - no one is saying that they are speaking ex cathedra if that is what you’re getting at. Does it bother you that your religion was founded by people who said such things?
   Before you bring up bad popes, saints, and the like - the Church was not founded on sinful popes or saints who had some harsh views or whatever. There will always be sinners mixed in with the saints - the Church is comprised of humans after all.
   But when I see thefounders of your religion make statements like this, even just in passing or casual speech, I wonder a little why you are not horrified, or at the very least, a little concerned.
2. Fair enough - but how do we know when a prophet is speaking as a prophet? Must he or she declare it in a certain manner? How does it work?
3. On the contrary, they have. For example, the infamous “blacks and the priesthood” issue was doctrine in the LDS church up until 1978. The practice of polygamy mentioned in the D+C 132 - which for you is scripture on par with the Old and New Testaments.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I’m starting to see a pattern through the forum of judging the beliefs of others by Catholic interpretation, then complaining it doesn’t make sense.
In this case, for example, you all seem to be wilfully ignoring three things:
Firstly that Latter Day Saints do not believe in prophetic infallibility
Secondly my quote above
And Thirdly that the things that are alway jumped on as prophetic statements, have never been adopted by the church as doctrine.

But i know these things have been pointed out before, so I don’t hold out much hope hat anyone will take any notice this time either.

And once you apply these 3 qualifications to the words of your “prophets” then what is left, what are actual prophecies as opposed to the speculations or advise of a regular guy?

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

On the contrary,

1. With the bizarre statements of some of your prophets, apostles, etc. I don’t think anyone is saying they are infallible. I would simply contend with you on the basis of reason and history - no one is saying that they are speaking ex cathedra if that is what you’re getting at. Does it bother you that your religion was founded by people who said such things?
   Before you bring up bad popes, saints, and the like - the Church was not founded on sinful popes or saints who had some harsh views or whatever. There will always be sinners mixed in with the saints - the Church is comprised of humans after all.
   But when I see thefounders of your religion make statements like this, even just in passing or casual speech, I wonder a little why you are not horrified, or at the very least, a little concerned.

Y’know, I can imagine Jews saying exactly the same kinds of things to the early Christians: especially from the Scribes and Pharisees. Some of the things that Jesus said were not acceptable to many others around, did this stop the early church from growing and spreading prolifically? No. Why not? Because its true, and it is the work of God.
Does it not bother you that your religion was founded by people who said such radical things so unacceptable to contemporaries?

1. Fair enough - but how do we know when a prophet is speaking as a prophet? Must he or she declare it in a certain manner? How does it work?

And once you apply these 3 qualifications to the words of your “prophets” then what is left, what are actual prophecies as opposed to the speculations or advise of a regular guy?

While only the prophet may receive revelations constituting new doctrine affecting the entire church (/world), once revealed every person can receive a personal witness of its truth. Before being published as doctrine, new revelations are ratified by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Tewlve. Through sincere prayer and with the influence of the Holy Spirit each member of this divinely appointed leadership body concurs that the newly revealed truth is, indeed, the word and will of God.
Thus:
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

1. On the contrary, they have. For example, the infamous “blacks and the priesthood” issue was doctrine in the LDS church up until 1978. The practice of polygamy mentioned in the D+C 132 - which for you is scripture on par with the Old and New Testaments.

The doctrine on those issues has never changed.
Polygamy is a well established practise throughout the Old Testament, which many (/most?) of the highly regarded prophets of God subscribed to.
I also note that Augustine held distinctly similar views to Latter Day Saints on this issue.

 

[theidler]

Y’know, I can imagine Jews saying exactly the same kinds of things to the early Christians: especially from the Scribes and Pharisees. Some of the things that Jesus said were not acceptable to many others around, did this stop the early church from growing and spreading prolifically? No. Why not? Because its true, and it is the work of God.
Does it not bother you that your religion was founded by people who said such radical things so unacceptable to contemporaries?

While only the prophet may receive revelations constituting new doctrine affecting the entire church (/world), once revealed every person can receive a personal witness of its truth. Before being published as doctrine, new revelations are ratified by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Tewlve. Through sincere prayer and with the influence of the Holy Spirit each member of this divinely appointed leadership body concurs that the newly revealed truth is, indeed, the word and will of God.
Thus:

The doctrine on those issues has never changed.
Polygamy is a well established practise throughout the Old Testament, which many (/most?) of the highly regarded prophets of God subscribed to.
I also note that Augustine held distinctly similar views to Latter Day Saints on this issue.

Wow - now you’re floundering. I am a Pharisee for viewing statements supporting polygamy and racism as abhorrent? Our Lord did NOT walk around proclaiming that black people were cursed, He did not advocate having multiple wives, He did not die in a gunfight. He died on the Cross, meek and lowly to the last. To compare the statements of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith to the teachings of Jesus Christ is actually insulting. :nope:

The reason Mormons in general are viewed as not Christian is that Mormonism and Christianity couldn’t be more different than night and day. Mormons wishing to be acknowledged as Christians makes about as much sense as Catholics wishing to be acknowledged as Wiccans:whacky:. This is what upsets Christians who are Orthodox, Protestant, or Catholic - the fact that a sect that denies the central tenets of historical Christianity is now claiming to be Christian.
And by the way, nobody on here is attacking Mormons personally - this is simply a critique of Mormonism and its doctrines, which from any Christian’s point of view, are going to be unorthodox.

And now you appeal to SAINT Augustine, whom your church holds as a member, an ardent defender of, and convert to, the great abomination that is the Catholic Church. How can you have the gall to appeal to our saints when your own church denies them as heretics and apostates? Your church has already twisted St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius around, now it’s going for St. Augustine. Unbelievable. Point out to me where St. Augustine supports the doctrines of polygamy. Please.

And thirdly, you obviously then deny the teaching of the major LDS church body, which now claims that polygamy is wrong - or do you deny that it was ever right - who knows! The early LDS movement practiced it, and abandoned it. Now you are claiming it has never changed. Will you please make up your mind at least??? Which is it? Can blacks not hold the priesthood or not? Is polygamy acceptable or not?
Or does “revelation” simply change when the church is caught in its own fallacies and absurdities?
And you know what’s really funny? You haven’t dealt with any of the OP’s quotes at all. You merely gave a blanket answer and left it there. I just don’t understand - this is just so frustrating to even read, I might as well yell into the wind. :banghead:

I’m sorry…this is just frustrating. I am trying my hardest to be charitable, and if I come off as attacking you personally, it is hardly my intention. I just don’t understand. I just…don’t. This is incredibly frustrating to even read honestly. I might just spend my time elsewhere, as this is proving quite detrimental to my patience.

:coolinoff:

 

[Stephen168]

I also note that Augustine held distinctly similar views to Latter Day Saints on this issue.

A popular Mormon fantasy that makes an appearance here as a deflection of Mormonism racist past, but has never been proven.

 

[zaffiroborant]

And once you apply these 3 qualifications to the words of your “prophets” then what is left, what are actual prophecies as opposed to the speculations or advise of a regular guy?
Mormon_Cultist;8826864:

While only the prophet may receive revelations constituting new doctrine affecting the entire church (/world), once revealed every person can receive a personal witness of its truth. Before being published as doctrine, new revelations are ratified by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Tewlve. Through sincere prayer and with the influence of the Holy Spirit each member of this divinely appointed leadership body concurs that the newly revealed truth is, indeed, the word and will of God.
Thus:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

But with all this you still didn’t answer my question, you just reiterated what you’ve said before. What have any of your prophets since JS said that goes beyond the speculation or opinion of a man. When have your prophets actually spoken as prophets?

 

[Stephen168]

And now you appeal to SAINT Augustine, whom your church holds as a member, an ardent defender of, and convert to, the great abomination that is the Catholic Church. How can you have the gall to appeal to our saints when your own church denies them as heretics and apostates? Your church has already twisted St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius around, now it’s going for St. Augustine. Unbelievable. Point out to me where St. Augustine supports the doctrines of polygamy. Please.

Augustine (354-430) of Hippo (Africa) said that slavery was part of the natural order. Ancient slavery was never based on skin color; it is a rather new invention. Mormonism was invented during North and South American slavery which was based on skin color. So to a Mormon, Ancient slavery=American slavery; slavery=racist; Therefore Augustine was a racist; therefore the Catholic Church practiced racism. The bolded part is the Mormonism fantasy, which they have to ignore to try to defend the racist history of Mormonism.

Polygamy and racism has never been a teaching of Catholicism.

 

[grandfather]

Y’know, I can imagine Jews saying exactly the same kinds of things to the early Christians: especially from the Scribes and Pharisees. Some of the things that Jesus said were not acceptable to many others around, did this stop the early church from growing and spreading prolifically? No. Why not? Because its true, and it is the work of God.
Does it not bother you that your religion was founded by people who said such radical things so unacceptable to contemporaries?