Question for LDS

[why_me]

I just reply using the “quote” button on the bottom of the post and then I break up the text where I need to, deleting anything extraneous, using new quote tags. That way the original part of the quoted text has the link to their original post, and each thing I say is sitting right underneath their words which are in a quote box. It seems to work well, and is just like an email with “>” setting off the quote.

I don’t like the technique some people use of quoting the one person, and then putting their own comments in quote boxes of their own underneath. This makes the “quote” button not work since CA forum does not include already quoted material in the new reply. Because of this I have to open a new tab with the reply in it, and cut and paste the text from the other window into a new quote box. A real pain. Not to mention that having everything quoted makes nothing look quoted, and it is hard to see what the person is actually saying and what somebody else said. I tend to not bother reading those kinds of posts myself.

I have said it before, if we all communicated that way, we would all be in the nut house. I find that when a poster does this, they may not want to be open for disagreement and so, they make it hard to respond. Also, maybe it gives the poster a sense of power seeing their post is a box with red, blue, and black letters. But yes, like you, I just ignore the post.

 

[why_me]

Answersplease has a posting style that makes it very difficult to answer him. One almost has to be an html expert in order to sort him out…and frankly, most of the time it’s not worth the trouble.

I agree. But his habit is catching on.

 

[why_me]

I am remembering the reasons I put you on ignore in your previous incarnation.

I have noticed this too. I see some similiarities. But no proof. At one point, I felt as if there were three posters who may have been the same person. It would be a great way to make the mormons a little crazy.

 

[cothrige]

1. Yes, you are correct. There does appear to be a degree of individuality to each intelligence. However, we have no idea to what degree to which it extends. It is safe only to say there is a degree of individuality, but the extent of the creation after that is an on-going mystery.

I think that I am following what you are saying here.

1. I can see that type of interpretation, but I would propose that the language, at least in the KJV of the Bible, is more explicit and that there is certainly a separation where the Son has seen the Father act previously and emulating his example. Regardless, if I was answering this question I would have sought of the PF also. This is a difference we have in the interpretation of this scripture.

Yes, I can see your view there. I think much of the language of the bible regarding Jesus and his relationship to the Father emphasises the separation of the two. I also understand why many take such verses in the way you do, and I wouldn’t fault it. As you say it is a difference of interpretation. I am sure there are many.

1. This question always revolves around the LDS view of the superiority of the resurrected being. We see the resurrection as one of the ultimate gifts of the Savior to all humanity. All will gain a body of perfected, purified, eternal body of flesh and bone. Additionally, you will find a concept of eternal progression within LDS theology. Heaven, Exaltation or Theosis is not completed in an instant, but is an eternal process. Some prophets have even gone so far as to say that this doctrine carries backward and applies to God the Father. However, I caution all, even LDS, that that belief is not doctrine, i.e. it is not found in scripture. It was not surprising to me that when the prophet Gordon B. Hinkley was interviewed on television that he stated, “I don’t believe we teach that”, “it is not the doctrine of the LDS Church” (I am paraphrasing). The doctrine of the Church from the beginning of the Church has always been that God is eternal and has always been God. If God the Father did live a life in mortality on a world of his creation, we only have a few scriptures in the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, that may lead us to that deduction; however, it is not a clearly stated doctrine of the Church. Boy, I feel like I went around the elbow to get to the thumb. Did I answer you yet?

Let me see if I am following you. Given the statement you quoted regarding man being as God once was, and your interpretation of John 5.19, I am naturally inclined to assume that your position would be that God the Father is a man with a body. However, your statement here that If God the Father did live a life in mortality… seems to show that just how God the Father became a man with a body is left undefined. Would that be a fair understanding? Am I ridiculously off base so far?

1. I admire your example and pray that I may better emulate it here on this forum. I believe that you are showing all of us the example of a true Christian. May God continue to bless and guide you.

You are very kind. I have enjoyed this thread more than just about any I have been involved in here, and it has been immensely informative. Everybody has been so patient and kind in answering me, and that environment has made it so much easier for me to avoid the many errors and faults to which I am so very prone on these boards. I am very thankful to you and all who have taken the time to clarify and correct my understanding of your faith. It has been an incredible pleasure to take part in this discussion.

 

[cothrige]

I have said it before, if we all communicated that way, we would all be in the nut house. I find that when a poster does this, they may not want to be open for disagreement and so, they make it hard to respond. Also, maybe it gives the poster a sense of power seeing their post is a box with red, blue, and black letters. But yes, like you, I just ignore the post.

Are you saying that you didn’t think I was in the nut house? I am just glad they are liberal with the computer time for some of us.

 

[Answersplease]

I am remembering the reasons I put you on ignore in your previous incarnation. HOW many times have you been shown that you are taking this out of context, sir? BY claimed that his sermons were scripture ONLY after they passed a couple of rather important tests: first, he had to say something like ‘thus saith the Lord…’ or actually proclaim THAT sermon to be scripture. He also had to have the ability to review and correct it, to make certain that what was heard was what he actually said.

In fact, the context you ripped your claim out of was in the same paragraph…even the same SENTENCE, as the claim you are making here. As a lawyer and a trained debator, you know better than this.

Answersplease:

Those two arguments don’t work, there are Mormon leaders that say a phrase like “thus saith the Lord” is’nt required. RebeccaJ posted something about it, If I can find it again I’ll repost it here.

As for your second argument, I just debated ParkerD about it, and after a few point counter-points, ParkerD bowed out and stoppped answering my counterpoints.
Criticizing my posting style (WHICH ParkerD did’nt mention when he bowed out) is just YOUR excuse, ParkerD’s excuse was that he had other things to do.

IF you THINK you can take over for ParkerD and beat me in this debate then review the debate and respond. My posting style aside, if you can’t defend that argument then it is clear that Brigham Young DID NOT NEED TO REVIEW AND CORRECT his sermon in order for it to be called scripture.

I raised some valid points, if they can’t be answered then the Mormon argument falls.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease has a posting style that makes it very difficult to answer him. One almost has to be an html expert in order to sort him out…and frankly, most of the time it’s not worth the trouble.

I have said it before, if we all communicated that way, we would all be in the nut house. I find that when a poster does this, they may not want to be open for disagreement and so, they make it hard to respond. Also, maybe it gives the poster a sense of power seeing their post is a box with red, blue, and black letters. But yes, like you, I just ignore the post.

Sidney Rigdon in the 18 june 1845 ‘Messenger and Advocate’ reported that Parley P. Pratt, in speaking of the means by which church leaders should sustain Smith, advised that ‘we must lie to protect brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.’ not only were church leaders willing to violate the law to promote polygamy, they did not hesitate to blacken the character of individuals who threatened to expose the secret practice of plural marriage.
…

-Richard van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, pp. 38-39

…they did not hesitate to blacken the character of individuals who threatened to expose the secret…
…

-Richard van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, pp. 38-39

 

[Answersplease]

I am remembering the reasons I put you on ignore in your previous incarnation. HOW many times have you been shown that you are taking this out of context, sir? BY claimed that his sermons were scripture ONLY after they passed a couple of rather important tests: first, he had to say something like ‘thus saith the Lord…’ or actually proclaim THAT sermon to be scripture. He also had to have the ability to review and correct it, to make certain that what was heard was what he actually said.

In fact, the context you ripped your claim out of was in the same paragraph…even the same SENTENCE, as the claim you are making here. As a lawyer and a trained debator, you know better than this.

Answersplease:

Those two arguments don’t work, there are Mormon leaders that say a phrase like “thus saith the Lord” is’nt required. RebeccaJ posted something about it, If I can find it again I’ll repost it here.

As for your second argument, I just debated ParkerD about it, and after a few point counter-points, ParkerD bowed out and stoppped answering my counterpoints.
Criticizing my posting style (WHICH ParkerD did’nt mention when he bowed out) is just YOUR excuse, ParkerD’s excuse was that he had other things to do.

IF you THINK you can take over for ParkerD and beat me in this debate then review the debate and respond. My posting style aside, if you can’t defend that argument then it is clear that Brigham Young DID NOT NEED TO REVIEW AND CORRECT his sermon in order for it to be called scripture.

I would say that ParkerD is one of your BEST apologists, I really doubt that YOU are better than him. And as for “why me” he’s not even in the same league as ParkerD.

I raised some valid points, if they can’t be answered then the Mormon argument falls.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

I doubt that The Holy Spirit guides people into lying.

The following quotes show everything anyone needs to know.

(Color red, underlining, and use of bold type added to highlight the original texts.)

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery

, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience." - Joseph Smith

“Address of the Prophet—His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo”, delivered Sunday, May 26, 1844. Printed in History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-412. Available at UTLM.org. The quote is significant when one considers that Smith secretly had thirty wives at the time of the address (cf. A partial listing with dates at FamilySearch.org).

Here is a link to the following quote by “why me”:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…8&postcount=18

why me:

First, it is not suprising that in public JS would deny polygamy. I would have done so too

since the hatred for mormons was very real. Polygamy would have created an intolerable position for the early mormons if the cat was let out of the bag. And so, I can see denying polygamy in public. No problem.
why me:

…it is not suprising that in public JS would deny polygamy. I would have done so too…

…intolerable position…if the cat was let out of the bag.

…I can see denying polygamy in public. No problem.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I am remembering the reasons I put you on ignore in your previous incarnation. HOW many times have you been shown that you are taking this out of context, sir? BY claimed that his sermons were scripture ONLY after they passed a couple of rather important tests: first, he had to say something like ‘thus saith the Lord…’ or actually proclaim THAT sermon to be scripture. He also had to have the ability to review and correct it, to make certain that what was heard was what he actually said.

In fact, the context you ripped your claim out of was in the same paragraph…even the same SENTENCE, as the claim you are making here. As a lawyer and a trained debator, you know better than this.

With all due respect, you pout me on ignore before because I know truth and you cannot keep iup with me. I do not buy your apologetics because they do not pass any logical tests. I never put up with your rudeness and gave it back to you. So, you out me on ignore. Runn ing from truth is sometimes easier than dealing with it.

BY was VERY clear…and all your grammar excuses do not change anytrhing. BY taught false doctrine as Scripture. I suggest you do some research with how the newspapers reported it at the time and how people did not like his doctrine. And yes, it is because I am an attorney that I am able to understand AND dig thru the junk to see the truth.

Have a blessed day

 

[SirThomasMore]

It is old and full of false doctrine. When it was first published it was under criticism from the lds leadership. In the second edition, many things were changed. It is just a book that outlived its time.

Yeah…a Mormon guy who was gonna be an apostle said the Catholic Church was the Great and Abominable Church. Mormon leaders bowed to pressure from outside the Church and. despite the fact they agreed with McKonkie, made him change it

 

[SirThomasMore]

I have noticed this too. I see some similiarities. But no proof. At one point, I felt as if there were three posters who may have been the same person. It would be a great way to make the mormons a little crazy.

I made it no secret when I changed names. So, to hint that there is sneakiness afoot is dishonest

 

[Caprica]

Those two arguments don’t work, there are Mormon leaders that say a phrase like “thus saith the Lord” is’nt required. RebeccaJ posted something about it, If I can find it again I’ll repost it here.

As for your second argument, I just debated ParkerD about it, and after a few point counter-points, ParkerD bowed out and stoppped answering my counterpoints.
Criticizing my posting style (WHICH ParkerD did’nt mention when he bowed out) is just YOUR excuse, ParkerD’s excuse was that he had other things to do.

IF you THINK you can take over for ParkerD and beat me in this debate then review the debate and respond. My posting style aside, if you can’t defend that argument then it is clear that Brigham Young DID NOT NEED TO REVIEW AND CORRECT his sermon in order for it to be called scripture.

I would say that ParkerD is one of your BEST apologists, I really doubt that YOU are better than him. And as for “why me” he’s not even in the same league as ParkerD.

I raised some valid points, if they can’t be answered then the Mormon argument falls.

If you go back to the immediate context of Brigham Young stating that his sermons are scripture, you will easily see that this debate is over and dianaiad is correct (in that Brigham Young clearly gave qualifications to which of his sermons can be considered scripture, and certainly did not mean that all of his sermons were scriptural):

Journal of Discourses 13:95
"Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. 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, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire."

Journal of Discourses 13:264

"Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations–that Brigham Young has said ‘when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.’ I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there. "

It does not matter whether other LDS authorities claimed that one did not need “thus saith the Lord”. We are talking about what Brigham Young meant when he said that “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture”. The immediate context of his statement shows that he did not mean that all of his sermons were scriptural, but that he must first correct that sermon, and they must be copied and approved by him. It is therefore dishonest to claim that every sermons preached by Brigham Young is scriptural for LDS, when they don’t meet the requirements set forth by Brigham Young himself about his own sermons.

 

[lax16]

If you go back to the immediate context of Brigham Young stating that his sermons are scripture, you will easily see that this debate is over and dianaiad is correct (in that Brigham Young clearly gave qualifications to which of his sermons can be considered scripture, and certainly did not mean that all of his sermons were scriptural):

Journal of Discourses 13:95
"Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. 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, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire."

Journal of Discourses 13:264

"Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations–that Brigham Young has said ‘when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.’ I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there. "

It does not matter whether other LDS authorities claimed that one did not need “thus saith the Lord”. We are talking about what Brigham Young meant when he said that “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture”. The immediate context of his statement shows that he did not mean that all of his sermons were scriptural, but that he must first correct that sermon, and they must be copied and approved by him. It is therefore dishonest to claim that every sermons preached by Brigham Young is scriptural for LDS, when they don’t meet the requirements set forth by Brigham Young himself about his own sermons.

Do you have proof that BY would actually edit his sermons and then release them in writing?

 

[Caprica]

Do you have proof that BY would actually edit his sermons and then release them in writing?

That is not something that I have researched, nor is it important to the point. The point is that Brigham Young did not claim that all of his sermons were scriptural (which seems to be what critics want him to have meant by referencing this statement) when he said the sentence in question (“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.”) The immediate context of that statement shows that he gave qualifications to that statement on what could be considered scriptural, and therefore shows what he meant when he said what he said.

 

[SirThomasMore]

That is not something that I have researched, nor is it important to the point.

Then why claim it?

The point is that Brigham Young did not claim that all of his sermons were scriptural

Well, take that up with him, because he DID say that

 

[Caprica]

Then why claim it?

What I have researched is what I have already referenced. Whether Brigham Young actually corrected and approved some of his sermons is irrelevant to the point that he claimed that this must be done for his sermons to be scripture.

Well, take that up with him, because he DID say that

Yes, he did say what he said, and I have already provided the immediate context of that statement that shows the qualifications necessary for his sermons to be considered scriptural. One cannot take one sentence and then ignore the sentences right after it.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Yes, he did say what he said, and I have already provided the immediate context of that statement that shows the qualifications necessary for his sermons to be considered scriptural. One cannot take one sentence and then ignore the sentences right after it.

I have seen and read the entire context. It is what I do. I know what he said. All the tap dancing in the world will change the fact that BY young believed that his sermons were Scripture

 

[Caprica]

I have seen and read the entire context. It is what I do. I know what he said. All the tap dancing in the world will change the fact that BY young believed that his sermons were Scripture

Sorry, there is no tap dancing when we are referencing what Brigham Young said about his own statement, including a sentence immediately after the statement in question. Brigham Young himself stated that if he would have the privilege of correcting a sermon, it is as good as scripture. He then said that when a sermons is copied and approved by him, they are as good as scripture. These are qualifications that he placed on his statement, and one cannot ignore them when taking another statement out of context.

 

[barnesms]

I think that I am following what you are saying here.

1. Yes, I can see your view there. I think much of the language of the bible regarding Jesus and his relationship to the Father emphasises the separation of the two. I also understand why many take such verses in the way you do, and I wouldn’t fault it. As you say it is a difference of interpretation. I am sure there are many.
2. Let me see if I am following you. Given the statement you quoted regarding man being as God once was, and your interpretation of John 5.19, I am naturally inclined to assume that your position would be that God the Father is a man with a body. However, your statement here that If God the Father did live a life in mortality… seems to show that just how God the Father became a man with a body is left undefined. Would that be a fair understanding? Am I ridiculously off base so far?
3. You are very kind. I have enjoyed this thread more than just about any I have been involved in here, and it has been immensely informative. Everybody has been so patient and kind in answering me, and that environment has made it so much easier for me to avoid the many errors and faults to which I am so very prone on these boards. I am very thankful to you and all who have taken the time to clarify and correct my understanding of your faith. It has been an incredible pleasure to take part in this discussion.

1. This need to describe the Godhead or what became known as the Trinity has always been puzzling. Throughout history churches have fought over this doctrine even unto death. However, if it was so vital to salvation, why did Jesus spend more time on clarifying the exact nature, and instructing us in its value. I think churches, for various reasons, created a value for it. But that value conflicts with everything the Bible tells us about how we receive Salvation. There are certainly some things that easily identified as vital to salvation. This clarification was not explained as such in the Bible. I know that is a heretical thought, but it is one of my personal beliefs.
2. I am more comfortable thinking of God as God, just as I am with thinking about Jesus as the Son of God rather than calling either a man. LDS do believe that both the Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone (you will never hear the words flesh and blood).
3. One leader of the LDS Church stated that Theology begin where Revelation ends. Theology is how man strives to understand God and his teachings to man. Revelation is a direct teaching from God to man without any interpretation. I have at time compared theology and doctrine to a Bulls Eye target. At the very center are truths that every Christian must absolute know for Salvation. Then as we move farther away from the center, the more we learn information that is nice to know, but really does not affect one’s salvation.

What are the important ones? They can be found in the ordinances/sacraments of the LDS Church: Baptism, Confirmation and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, repentance, weekly Sacrament (we use bread and water), Priesthood for men, healing by the laying on of hands, and temple marriage. I think each of these is a way to lead us to holiness and fulfilling those steps the Savior outlined for us. Thank you again for a wonderful exchange.