Question for LDS

[RebeccaJ]

What BY taught was believed by those who lived at the time. According to LDS today, BY was teaching falsely.

This indicates to me that those who lived at the time were deceived. I would be worried if I were LDS, as to what teachings are false today, and what are the deceptions.

 

[Caprica]

I admire your patience. What is truly funny in these exchanges is how often several of the Catholic editors get together and complain about how those terrible Mormons destort Mormon history, twist the truth about their church, whitewash their faith, or God forbid, demonstrate how the Catholic Church is just as guilty, if not more so, of exactly what they are attempting to paste onto the LDS Church. The problem is that on this website, so many Catholics do exactly what they accuse LDS of doing. It is very strange, very disheartening, and very unbecoming of all that try to follow Christ.

Caprica, do you think it wise for us to be here or should this be left alone? I have had some truly wonderful ecumenical conversations, but they are so few. I am curious about your answer. It is easy to understand why WHY ME has been so impatient with editors at times. I am a bit confused at the present as to what to do. Ecumenism is nearly dead on this website, but that may be that this is not a site designed for ecumenical efforts, which is certainly appropriate.

I agree, and it’s interesting that some of the tactics and arguments used by some against the LDS Church are the same as those used against the Catholic Church on websites like CARM. It’s especially interesting when posters descend into Bible-only arguments, when neither of our churches believe in sola scriptura (I have seen LDS do the same though). I think that it is important to correct the false understandings of our beliefs here. There are Catholics that post at MADB (an LDS forum), and it is always better to have their opinion on Catholicism than that of the ex-Catholic LDS, and vice versa.

You can always come to Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board for a change of scenery.

I guess this is what happens when you have people that sincerely believe that they are members of the One True Church, and have the Truth.

 

[SirThomasMore]

What BY taught was believed by those who lived at the time. According to LDS today, BY was teaching falsely.

This indicates to me that those who lived at the time were deceived. I would be worried if I were LDS, as to what teachings are false today, and what are the deceptions.

How silly is it to believe that BY had to review and print before it becamse doctrine. So, what we are sayhing is, He would give a sermon. People would hear it. Then, they would go home and sit aroundf wondering, “well, the prophet said it in a sermon…should we listen?” “No, let’s wait a while and see if he makes any changes.”

Soon, no one went to his sermons. “Honey, should we go hear BY’s sermon?” “No Dear, it might not mean anything. Let’s just wait to see the corrected version in a few months”.

 

[Kdesiel]

What BY taught was believed by those who lived at the time. According to LDS today, BY was teaching falsely.

This indicates to me that those who lived at the time were deceived. I would be worried if I were LDS, as to what teachings are false today, and what are the deceptions.

According to the LDS definition of Apostasy they’re in a state of Apostasy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

How silly is it to believe that BY had to review and print before it becamse doctrine. So, what we are sayhing is, He would give a sermon. People would hear it. Then, they would go home and sit aroundf wondering, “well, the prophet said it in a sermon…should we listen?” “No, let’s wait a while and see if he makes any changes.”

Soon, no one went to his sermons. “Honey, should we go hear BY’s sermon?” “No Dear, it might not mean anything. Let’s just wait to see the corrected version in a few months”.

Yes, it is like a mormon telling us today they can ignore the general conference talks that are printed in an Ensign.

I guess that’s the way to go if you want to be LDS, but don’t believe what its leaders teach.

 

[RebeccaJ]

According to the LDS definition of Apostasy they’re in a state of Apostasy.

 

[Kdesiel]

How silly is it to believe that BY had to review and print before it becamse doctrine. So, what we are sayhing is, He would give a sermon. People would hear it. Then, they would go home and sit aroundf wondering, “well, the prophet said it in a sermon…should we listen?” “No, let’s wait a while and see if he makes any changes.”

Soon, no one went to his sermons. “Honey, should we go hear BY’s sermon?” “No Dear, it might not mean anything. Let’s just wait to see the corrected version in a few months”.

Got a good laugh when I read this…true…very true.

So does that mean if one were LDS it would be better to wait for the General Conference edition of the Ensign before taking any of address’s or sermons from the General Authorities into consideration. Since according to some it isn’t valid until it is edited and the applicable changes are made?
I mean if that is how BY did things wouldn’t the General Authorities today follow suit?

 

[twopekinguys]

Sorry, you continue to provide more assumptions, without any evidence. I have asked you what in his quote leads to the belief that all of his sermons were scriptural, and you have not provided that. I don’t see the word “chance” used in any of the quotes, so I am not sure why you referenced that.

This is really simple, and I understand why it is easier to continue the refrain that all of Brigham Young’s sermons were scripture, and ignore a call for references, instead provide assumptions. The Wikipedia article states that publication of the Journal of Discourses began with the endorsement of the First Presidency. It says nothing about Brigham Young correcting his sermons and approving them as scripture. If it does, please cite that. Otherwise, I assume that you will continue to assume what happened.

Ok, so you want to play word games, I understand. Given the context of his statement. Being given the “privilege” to correct his sermon is just another way of saying being given a “chance” to correct it.

Again, you are forgetting that he had the “privilege” of 23 years in which to correct what he said before he, and the rest of the first presidency endorsed it for publication.

You’re right, it really is simple, that is why I don’t understand how you’re not getting it. He said : “Let this go out to the people with ‘Thus saith the Lord’, and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening had of the Lord upon them.”

Like I said before, at least one lds poster on here has stated that if a “prophet” says “thus saith the Lord”, then it is scripture. Was that poster wrong? If the Lord said it, why would it need corrected?

 

[Caprica]

How silly is it to believe that BY had to review and print before it becamse doctrine. So, what we are sayhing is, He would give a sermon. People would hear it. Then, they would go home and sit aroundf wondering, “well, the prophet said it in a sermon…should we listen?” “No, let’s wait a while and see if he makes any changes.”

Soon, no one went to his sermons. “Honey, should we go hear BY’s sermon?” “No Dear, it might not mean anything. Let’s just wait to see the corrected version in a few months”.

Except it’s more like “Honey, should we go hear BY’s sermon?”. “Yes dear, but we must remember that it may not be scripture, since not everything said by the Prophet is scripture, though it is certainly important to hear. This reminds me of the Catholics, who believe that what the Bishop of Rome says is important to hear, but it is not always infallible.”

 

[twopekinguys]

How silly is it to believe that BY had to review and print before it becamse doctrine. So, what we are sayhing is, He would give a sermon. People would hear it. Then, they would go home and sit aroundf wondering, “well, the prophet said it in a sermon…should we listen?” “No, let’s wait a while and see if he makes any changes.”

Soon, no one went to his sermons. “Honey, should we go hear BY’s sermon?” “No Dear, it might not mean anything. Let’s just wait to see the corrected version in a few months”.

I think I just spit soda all over my keyboard.

 

[Kdesiel]

Except it’s more like “Honey, should we go hear BY’s sermon?”. “Yes dear, but we must remember that it may not be scripture, since not everything said by the Prophet is scripture, though it is certainly important to hear. This reminds me of the Catholics, who believe that what the Bishop of Rome says is important to hear, but it is not always infallible.”

So…is there a protocol manual so you know when a Prophet is speaking as a Prophet and when he’s speaking as just a “Man”?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Except it’s more like “Honey, should we go hear BY’s sermon?”. "Yes dear, but we must remember that it may not be scripture, since not everything said by the Prophet is scripture, though it is certainly important to hear.

Teachings Of The Living Prophet Student Manual

                                  “Second: The living prophet is **more vital to us than the standard  works**.                 
                                  “Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and  the First Presidency—**follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer**.

4-1

While Latter-day Saints revere the Bible as the word of God, they also have other scriptures. In addition to the Bible, any message given by God’s prophets through the power of the Holy Ghost is scripture.

This reminds me of the Catholics, who believe that what the Bishop of Rome says is important to hear, but it is not always infallible."

We believe no such thing about the Bishop of Rome. He is not more vital than the Bible, if we reject a Pope, we will not suffer, any message given by the Pope is not scripture.

 

[Caprica]

Ok, so you want to play word games, I understand. Given the context of his statement. Being given the “privilege” to correct his sermon is just another way of saying being given a “chance” to correct it.

Sorry, you were playing word games by putting “chance” in quotations as if Brigham Young used the word, when I did not see it.

Again, you are forgetting that he had the “privilege” of 23 years in which to correct what he said before he, and the rest of the first presidency endorsed it for publication.

Sorry, I’m not forgetting anything. I readily see that you are assuming that, due to the length of time, he must have corrected his sermons. Please provide the evidence that he did so. Perhaps something like “Brigham Young and the First Presidency reviewed and corrected all sermons found in the Journal of Discourses before publication”. I don’t see what is so hard to do this if it’s true.

You’re right, it really is simple, that is why I don’t understand how you’re not getting it. He said : “Let this go out to the people with ‘Thus saith the Lord’, and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening had of the Lord upon them.”

Like I said before, at least one lds poster on here has stated that if a “prophet” says “thus saith the Lord”, then it is scripture. Was that poster wrong? If the Lord said it, why would it need corrected?

Which has to do with what exactly? You said that the entirety of the quote shows that all of Brigham Young’s sermons were scripture. What is the quote that shows this? I believe I’ve asked for this a few times. Is it the “thus saith the Lord” part? What does that have to do with all of Brigham Young’s sermons being scripture? It’s in that same paragraph that he qualifies the statement that his sermons are scripture by saying that they had to be corrected by himself. So how does this address my statements?

 

[SirThomasMore]

I think I just spit soda all over my keyboard.

 

[Caprica]

We believe no such thing about the Bishop or Rome. He is not more vital than the Bible, if we reject a bad Pope, we will not suffer, any message given by the Pope is not scripture.

Whoever said that you believe that the Pope is more vital than the Bible?

As I said, Catholics believe that the words of the Pope are always important, yet they are not always infallible. LDS believe that the words of the Prophet are always important, yet they are not always inspired. As that same manual clearly states: “Not every word they speak should be thought of as an official interpretation or pronouncement.”

Also, I understand that you don’t believe that any message given by the Pope is scripture. However, infallible statements by the Pope cannot be rejected and are therefore on par with scripture. Or can someone reject Ineffabilis Deus?

 

[twopekinguys]

Sorry, you were playing word games by putting “chance” in quotations as if Brigham Young used the word, when I did not see it.

LOL, too funny. Are you disputing that in this case that the words chance and privilege are inter-changeable?

Sorry, I’m not forgetting anything. I readily see that you are assuming that, due to the length of time, he must have corrected his sermons. Please provide the evidence that he did so. Perhaps something like “Brigham Young and the First Presidency reviewed and corrected all sermons found in the Journal of Discourses before publication”. I don’t see what is so hard to do this if it’s true.

So prove me wrong. Prove to me that he didn’t make any corrections. Prove to me that he didn’t approve of them being printed as they are.

Which has to do with what exactly? You said that the entirety of the quote shows that all of Brigham Young’s sermons were scripture. What is the quote that shows this? I believe I’ve asked for this a few times. Is it the “thus saith the Lord” part? What does that have to do with all of Brigham Young’s sermons being scripture? It’s in that same paragraph that he qualifies the statement that his sermons are scripture by saying that they had to be corrected by himself. So how does this address my statements?

LOL, are you serious with this? At one point you want to use the whole statement, now you only want to use part of it.

First, he didn’t say “had to be corrected”, he said to be given the privilege, or chance.

I think this is the 3rd or 4th time I have said this, but I have seen an lds poster on here state that it cannot be considered scripture unless the “prophet” says “Thus saith the Lord”. Now, if you look at the whole statement, after all, that is what you wanted to do from the beginning, he says “Thus saith the Lord”, which would make the whole statement scripture.

Is the lds poster who said that wrong?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Whoever said that you believe that the Pope is more vital than the Bible?

You do, when you compare your mormon “prophet” to the Pope.

As I said, Catholics believe that the words of the Pope are always important, yet they are not always infallible. LDS believe that the words of the Prophet are always important, yet they are not always inspired. As that same manual clearly states: “Not every word they speak should be thought of as an official interpretation or pronouncement.”

Why are you calling a prophet a prophet, if what they say is not prophetic?

Also, I understand that you don’t believe that any message given by the Pope is scripture. However, infallible statements by the Pope cannot be rejected and are therefore on par with scripture. Or can someone reject Ineffabilis Deus?

Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed

• which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
• and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
• whether by her solemn judgment
• or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

A teaching of ordinary and universal magisterium is a teaching of which all bishops (including the Pope) universally agree on and is also considered infallible.

Ineffabilis Deus was defined as doctrine by the magisterium.

On the other hand, Caritas in Veritate was not, and Catholics are free to agree or disagree.

I believe what BY taugh in regards to Adam/God has been called the Adam-God doctrine. What makes it a doctrine?

 

[Caprica]

LOL, too funny. Are you disputing that in this case that the words chance and privilege are inter-changeable?

What is actually too funny is that you put chance in quotations as if Brigham Young used the word, when he did not. Whether or not it is interchangeable in this instance (sure, it is) does not change the fact that you were attributing (or implying an attribution) of a word to Brigham Young that he did not use.

So prove me wrong. Prove to me that he didn’t make any corrections. Prove to me that he didn’t approve of them being printed as they are.

I’ve already said that I don’t need to prove a negative. You stated that he corrected the sermons and approved them as scripture, and I have asked you to demonstrate that he did. Since you could not, you have relied on assumptions, which is understandable.

LOL, are you serious with this? At one point you want to use the whole statement, now you only want to use part of it.

What are you talking about? I have readily accepted all of Brigham Young’s statements on this issue. In fact, I was the one that introduced the entire quotes to this discussion. So which part of his statement am I dismissing.

Please provide the part of the statement that I don’t want to use.

First, he didn’t say “had to be corrected”, he said to be given the privilege, or chance.

I think this is the 3rd or 4th time I have said this, but I have seen an lds poster on here state that it cannot be considered scripture unless the “prophet” says “Thus saith the Lord”. Now, if you look at the whole statement, after all, that is what you wanted to do from the beginning, he says “Thus saith the Lord”, which would make the whole statement scripture.

Is the lds poster who said that wrong?

I asked you before, what does “thus saith the Lord” have to do with what I have said? Since I have not disputed anything within the paragraph quote that includes “thus saith the Lord” (where Brigham Young clearly states not only that his sermons are scripture but that he had to correct it for it to be considered scripture), what are you talking about?

 

[Caprica]

Why are you calling a prophet a prophet, if what they say is not prophetic?

Are you saying that everything a prophet says must be prophetic? If so, where does this definition come from?

Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed

• which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
• and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
• whether by her solemn judgment
• or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

A teaching of ordinary and universal magisterium is a teaching of which all bishops (including the Pope) universally agree on and is also considered infallible.

Ineffabilis Deus was defined as doctrine by the magisterium.

Right, it cannot be rejected, whether or not it is found in the Bible.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Are you saying that everything a prophet says must be prophetic? If so, where does this definition come from?

definition of prophecy:

1 : an inspired utterance of a prophet
2 : the function or vocation of a prophet; specifically : the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose
3 : a prediction of something to come

Does BY speaking at the pulpit in a mormon general conference fall under this definition? Especially #2?

Right, it cannot be rejected, whether or not it is found in the Bible.

Right, it is not comparable, Pope to Prophet. Which is what you were trying to pull off. The Pope is not the Magisterium and the Magisterium is not the Pope.

I know when the Church is giving us infallible doctrine, because they let me know it is.

LDS are winging it as far as I can tell. What is doctrine today, is opinion tomorrow.

What BY taught in regards to Adam/God has been called the Adam-God doctrine. What made it a doctrine then? Why is it now opinion?