Thus Saith the Lord and LDS "Prophets"

[ParkerD]

Continuation to Soren1:

Maybe you are so used to reading this text from a certain perspective that you don’t even see why I am saying these things or realize that you even have something to respond to. Up to a point, I can sympathize with that: how many Protestants think Paul teaches faith alone? It’s not because they are stubborn. It is just that when you are used to reading a text in a certain way, it can be hard to look at it with fresh eyes. One way to acquire fresh eyes is to consider the grounds presented for an alternate interpretation and try to figure out why someone else might hold that. If you are right, your response to my argument should help to establish the correctness of your position and improve your own understanding of Scripture.

If you’re saying you’ve read the Doctrine and Covenants more times than I have, then I sincerely doubt that. I assure you I have a solid background in both the spiritual side of understanding LDS scriptures (i.e. having the Holy Ghost testify of the messages and doctrines) and the practical side of having read them dozens of times and gleaned the meaning through drawing from the composite understanding rather than taking one isolated verse such as you have been wont to do here with D & C 107:28 and 92.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

Yet even without granting it authority per se, 1 Enoch is a better source than you seem to give it credit for, because it is quoted with approval in the New Testament. Jude cites it explicitly in v.13-14, and alludes to it throughout, borrowing many words and phrases directly. (The part you reference about Michael, Satan, and the body of Moses in v.7 is also derived from a pseudepigraphal work, The Apocryphon of Moses,.) That does not make 1 Enoch Scripture: it is at best a collection of profound mystical texts, which might record real revelations, but it is not verbally inspired as Scripture is. Yet we should at least treat it as edifying reading in accordance with the obvious respect that Jude has for it. Speaking of Jude, you mention that he shows Michael as subordinate to God. I agree. That is no problem, because Michael is always subordinate to Elohim in both Smith and Young’s theology; I have not contested that. My objection is that Young, knowing Michael to be less than Elohim, failed to see the blasphemy in ascribing to Michael divine honors in his rule over man. Yet Jude does provide one problem for you. We have seen that Jude takes a favorable view of 1 Enoch, and that he teaches about Michael’s subordination to God. In this, Jude concurs with 1 Enoch, which also teaches of Michael’s subordination … to the Ancient of Days:

And I saw countless angels - a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million – encircling that house. Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel, and numerous (other) holy angels that are in heaven above, go in and out of the house - Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel, and numerous (other) holy angels that are countless. With them is the Antecedent of Time: his head is white and pure, like wool and his garment is indescribable. I fell on my face, my whole body mollified and my spirit transformed. Then I cried with a great voice by the spirit of the power, blessing, glorifying, and extolling. And those are the blessings which went forth out of my mouth, being well-pleasing in the presence of that Antecedent of Time. Then the Antecedent of Time came with Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel, and a hundred thousand and ten million time a hundred thousand angels that are countless. (1 Enoch 71:8-14)

Although this isn’t scripture, does it not seem incongruous that Jude, a real Scriptural writer, whose teaching on Michael is central to the argument of his epistle, should in that very epistle make repeated allusions to and explicitly quote an apostate book, which teaches a significant error on the very topic about which Jude is writing?

I don’t consider 1 Enoch an “apostate book” at all. There may be difficulty with the translation of the text or the words being read from the original source. Prepositions and punctuation are definitely something that can be handled wrong during a translation process.

The term “Ancient of days” could be a symbolic term that represents one who sits in authority over vast numbers of people. It could thus be a dual symbol. It is a symbol that definitely has to do with “hidden secrets” of the end times. It makes more sense to me that the symbol would have to do with Adam rather than with God the Father, and that he will participate in gathering and preparing the books and records that will be used for judgment day (Daniel 7:10) before the final judgment done by Christ.

 

[Returning_Home]

Soren1,
I see no evidence that BY thought Adam was the actual father of the Savior. I see evidence that he was teaching that God the Father, and not the Holy Ghost, was physically the father of the Savior. I see evidence that he was also teaching that Mary, a descendant of Adam and of David, was the literal physical mother of the Savior. You will also find that the LDS belief is consistently that Mary was a virgin both when she conceived all the way until after Jesus was born, so God the Father being the physical Father would be by His knowledge of how to do that while preserving her being a virgin.

As to joint heirship of “glory” as a shared glory, that is certainly taught by the apostle John several times, as I’m sure you are aware.

You don’t see it because you don’t want to. The church has sharply veered away from this now, but the church held it as fact through at least the 1900s.

“I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth–the first man. That forst man sent his own Son to redeem the world, to redeem his brethren; his life was taken, his blood shed, that our sins might be remitted.” (Heber C. Kimball, first counselor to Brigham Young, June 29, 1856, JOD 4:1)

“…Adam, who is the first man…” (D&C 84:16)

“And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I have created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I called Adam…” (Moses 1:33-34, HOTC 1:100)

“Who was the savior begotten by? …Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Chirst. WHo is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the Ancient of Days.” (Brigham Young Collection, Feb 19, 1854)

No, Mary couldn’t have been a virgin when she conceived Jesus in Mormon old theology:

“…God the Eternal Father, is literally the father of Jesus Christ.” (Joseph F. Smith, Stake Conference, Dec 20, 1914)

Thus, we now know that not only is Adam the father of our spirits, but when he literally impregnanted Mary, remembering that God has a body of flesh and bone, what do we have?

Celestial incest, as he was having sex with his own daughter, Mary.

Not very Christian, is it? No, and that’s the reason that the concept had to be reformulated in the church’s attempt to mainstream itself.

 

[twopekinguys]

Ok, is an LDS prophet speaking as a prophet when he’s asked about the Utah Jazz lineup?

I have noticed on the Salt Lake Tribune website that they have all of these stories about Monson and the Jazz.

I know the owner of the Jazz died a while back, and the ownership of the team is listed as “the estate of…”, does that mean the lds church owns them now? Or at least controlling them? Does he have to say “thus saith the Lord”, in order to make it a valid contract or trade?

Why are people more interested in hearing the head of the lds church talk about basketball than say…oh…I don’t know…illegal immigration or global warning?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Here’s something that I brought up on another thread that is related to this topic.

In the Gospel Principles chapter “Scripture”, we find these statements:

**“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These books are called the standard works of the Church. The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture.”

“In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9).”**

Many Mormons, including some on this forum, attempt to create a type of “sola scriptura” Mormonism, where they claim that if it isn’t in the Standard Works, it isn’t doctrine. The problem with this statement is that the Gospel Principles manual claims that the inspired words of living prophets are also scripture.

My questions are: If the inspired words of living prophets are scripture, how do you know when you are listening to these “inspired words”? The manual states that we can find such words in conferences, the Liahona and Ensign magazine, and instructions to local leaders. So, are all of the words said at General Conferences, for example, the “inspired words of [your] living prophets”? Where is this delineated by the LDS church? Finally, if the inspired words of living prophets are scripture, do they become uninspired and not scripture when they are no longer living?

 

[PaulDupre]

Finally, if the inspired words of living prophets are scripture, do they become uninspired and not scripture when they are no longer living?

FWIW, the late LDS President Ezra Taft Benson declared that “a living prophet trumps a dead one”.

But then, he’s dead now, so,

 

[TikiTokiguy]

Can’t wait to hear from the LDS Prophets -

*Thus Saith the Lord: if you remain single in this life you will have no increase and spend eternity in the Tellestial kingdom, being the servants of bad but married Saints! You will serve their every need. And you will always carry a sign on your back saying - I was a single loser on earth! And Mittens Romney will come down from his own planet with all his wifes and make fun of you for being single! *

 

[MelanieAnne]

Can’t wait to hear from the LDS Prophets -

*Thus Saith the Lord: if you remain single in this life you will have no increase and spend eternity in the Tellestial kingdom, being the servants of bad but married Saints! You will serve their every need. And you will always carry a sign on your back saying - I was a single loser on earth! And Mittens Romney will come down from his own planet with all his wifes and make fun of you for being single! *

Come join us TikiToki, there are no 2nd class Catholics!

 

[Returning_Home]

It’s fair enough to say that when the prophet is speaking about the chances of the Utah Jazz winning that night’s game or asking his wife to pass the salt at the dinner table wouldn’t be considered ‘scripture.’ I can go along with that.

What they mean by ‘inspired counsel’ can vary from time to time, statement to statement, depending on whether it embarrasses the church at this point in time or not.

Joseph Smith said that a prophet is only a prophet whan he’s acting as such (I can’t remember the source at the moment). By that, we can glean that if he’s speaking on matters of spirituality, whether he says ‘thus sayeth God’ or not being irrelevent, he must be speaking of and for God because as Gospel Principles makes plain: “The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.” (GP p 50, 1996 edition)

That’s pretty airtight because it gives us no conditions under which he can be wrong, mistaken, or simply voicing his own opinion, does it? It fact, nowhere in GP do we find any such amendments or loopholes.

Now, let’s apply the following statements from the prophets to that standard, shall we?

 

[SirThomasMore]

if he was a true prophet, he would not have to go to the game…he would already know who was gonna win

 

[Returning_Home]

if he was a true prophet, he would not have to go to the game…he would already know who was gonna win

That’s true; good times at the off track betting parlor, too.

 

[twopekinguys]

No wonder they’re rich…

 

[lax16]

It’s fair enough to say that when the prophet is speaking about the chances of the Utah Jazz winning that night’s game or asking his wife to pass the salt at the dinner table wouldn’t be considered ‘scripture.’ I can go along with that.

What they mean by ‘inspired counsel’ can vary from time to time, statement to statement, depending on whether it embarrasses the church at this point in time or not.

Joseph Smith said that a prophet is only a prophet whan he’s acting as such (I can’t remember the source at the moment). By that, we can glean that if he’s speaking on matters of spirituality, whether he says ‘thus sayeth God’ or not being irrelevent, he must be speaking of and for God because as Gospel Principles makes plain: “The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.” (GP p 50, 1996 edition)

That’s pretty airtight because it gives us no conditions under which he can be wrong, mistaken, or simply voicing his own opinion, does it? It fact, nowhere in GP do we find any such amendments or loopholes.

Now, let’s apply the following statements from the prophets to that standard, shall we?

I agree that casual dinner conversation is not meant to be prophetic.

However, the part that confuses me is when JS would call a group of people together, speak about several topics for an extended period of time, people would sit there and listen…then Mormons today say it didn’t count because JS needed to get a transcript of his own sermons, edit it, send it out for correction, THEN it becomes binding as scripture.

Didn’t JS have a reason for calling people together to listen to him speak? Didn’t he eventually realize that he needed to write things down first and have it edited by whoever so that when people came to hear him speak, they would feel motivated to react to the prophets words immediately - not weeks later?

How could JS motivate his followers if everyone had to wait for the edited version of his speech before putting his words into action?

Has there ever been a prophet or leader who didn’t expect people to react to their words immediately?

 

[Returning_Home]

My questions are: If the inspired words of living prophets are scripture, how do you know when you are listening to these “inspired words”? The manual states that we can find such words in conferences, the Liahona and Ensign magazine, and instructions to local leaders. So, are all of the words said at General Conferences, for example, the “inspired words of [your] living prophets”? Where is this delineated by the LDS church? Finally, if the inspired words of living prophets are scripture, do they become uninspired and not scripture when they are no longer living?

Basically, the church has created an escape hatch for itself because it realized that it couldn’t undo the damage done by some of the monumentally stupid and blatantly untrue things the prophets have said over the years.

They tell outsiders that they accept those four standard works as scripture but don’t bother to mention the other non-canonized things until at some later point. This creates the ability for the church to believe and teach something that’s not in the standard works because it shores up their position with ‘inspired counsel.’ This doesn’t mean everything the prophet says is scripture, only what the church can use to make the dog and pony show look good.

What it also does is allow the church to change what it believes and teaches as it sees fit, under the guise of ‘continuing revelation.’ Whomever the living prophet is should be considered the current authority and can revise and redact what previous prophets have stated. This would all make sense if we didn’t have verse after verse in the BOM that clearly state that God doesn’t change and his decrees are unalterable. (Alma 41:8 and Mormon 9:9)

 

[Returning_Home]

I agree that casual dinner conversation is not meant to be prophetic.

However, the part that confuses me is when JS would call a group of people together, speak about several topics for an extended period of time, people would sit there and listen…then Mormons today say it didn’t count because JS needed to get a transcript of his own sermons, edit it, send it out for correction, THEN it becomes binding as scripture.

Didn’t JS have a reason for calling people together to listen to him speak? Didn’t he eventually realize that he needed to write things down first and have it edited by whoever so that when people came to hear him speak, they would feel motivated to react to the prophets words immediately - not weeks later?

How could JS motivate his followers if everyone had to wait for the edited version of his speech before putting his words into action?

Has there ever been a prophet or leader who didn’t expect people to react to their words immediately?

Any Mormon who tells you that is just playing word games. If Joseph Smith were a prophet of God like those in the Bible, simply ask them to show you where this has ever been the case before. And to go further, ask them why, if the First Presidency has to vote on something to determine if it’s something the church will adopt, where Jesus ever took a vote for anything he taught.

Smith, as he began to believe the lies he told people about being a prophet of God, expected people to do what he said when he said it. There was no real lag time; if he sent you on a mission, you went on a mission. And if you returned to find that he’d married your wife in the meantime, you knew the reason…

As for your last question, the church leaders gradually realized that while Mormonism is a sham, it was a sham capable of making certain people (themselves) very rich. This cycle perpertuates itself today with the church generating tens of millions of dollars of unreported income. The revelations and prophecies with actual meat to them became fewer and fewer until they’re all just the same nonsense: the church is true, tithe, be nice to each other, tithe, persevere until the end, and, of course, tithe.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Any Mormon who tells you that is just playing word games. If Joseph Smith were a prophet of God like those in the Bible, simply ask them to show you where this has ever been the case before. And to go further, ask them why, if the First Presidency has to vote on something to determine if it’s something the church will adopt, where Jesus ever took a vote for anything he taught.

Smith, as he began to believe the lies he told people about being a prophet of God, expected people to do what he said when he said it. There was no real lag time; if he sent you on a mission, you went on a mission. And if you returned to find that he’d married your wife in the meantime, you knew the reason…

As for your last question, the church leaders gradually realized that while Mormonism is a sham, it was a sham capable of making certain people (themselves) very rich. This cycle perpertuates itself today with the church generating tens of millions of dollars of unreported income. The revelations and prophecies with actual meat to them became fewer and fewer until they’re all just the same nonsense: the church is true, tithe, be nice to each other, tithe, persevere until the end, and, of course, tithe.

Returning Home,

While I disagree with just about every aspect of Mormon theology; I would caution you to be careful in making claims you are unable to support–such as “tens of millions of dollars of unreported income” are making Mormons rich.

Anna

 

[Returning_Home]

Returning Home,

While I disagree with just about every aspect of Mormon theology; I would caution you to be careful in making claims you are unable to support–such as “tens of millions of dollars of unreported income” are making Mormons rich.

Anna

Unsupported claims? Hardly.

Let’s assume that the church’s claims of having 13 million members is correct. And let’s then assume that only half of all members tithe properly. We’re now talking about 6.5 million members tithing 10% of their income. With high-visibility members like Gladys Knight, Steve Young, Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, the Osmond family, Glen Beck, Orson Scott Card, Stephen Covey, and Stephenie Meyer, we’re already talking about a lot of theoretical capital. Odds are that being in the public eye, the pressure is on them to tithe their proper amounts.

While the church has been able to hide what it makes as income from tithing, its publicly traded church-owned companies have to report theirs. As of 1996, the church owned 16 radio stattions, one television station (FCC rules forbid owning more than one), the largest beef ranch in all of America (Deseret Ranch in Orlano, FL, the land alone is valued at $858 million), the Polynesian Cultural Center in Hawaii (annual revenue of at least $40 million), AgReserves and ArgriNorthwest farms and ranches, BYU (Provo, Hawaii, and Jerusalem) and Ricks (ID) college campuses, and of course the other Deseret companies that produce clothing, food, and printed products. We also have the dozens of church-owned historical sites that generate money through admissions, donations, and gift sales like the gift shop at the base of Hill Cumorah, places that the Smith family lived or owned, the Carthage jail, or other sites significant to church history.

We’re talking about assets valued at well over 30 billion dollars and an annual income somewhere north of $5.9 billion dollars and that’s without counting any tithing income. My estimates of ‘tens of millions of dollars of unreported income’ are likely well below their actual numbers, but we’ll never really know since the church managed to deceive the US government into thinking it was a legitimate religion.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Unsupported claims? Hardly.

Let’s assume that the church’s claims of having 13 million members is correct. And let’s then assume that only half of all members tithe properly. We’re now talking about 6.5 million members tithing 10% of their income. With high-visibility members like Gladys Knight, Steve Young, Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, the Osmond family, Glen Beck, Orson Scott Card, Stephen Covey, and Stephenie Meyer, we’re already talking about a lot of theoretical capital. Odds are that being in the public eye, the pressure is on them to tithe their proper amounts.

While the church has been able to hide what it makes as income from tithing, its publicly traded church-owned companies have to report theirs. As of 1996, the church owned 16 radio stattions, one television station (FCC rules forbid owning more than one), the largest beef ranch in all of America (Deseret Ranch in Orlano, FL, the land alone is valued at $858 million), the Polynesian Cultural Center in Hawaii (annual revenue of at least $40 million), AgReserves and ArgriNorthwest farms and ranches, BYU (Provo, Hawaii, and Jerusalem) and Ricks (ID) college campuses, and of course the other Deseret companies that produce clothing, food, and printed products. We also have the dozens of church-owned historical sites that generate money through admissions, donations, and gift sales like the gift shop at the base of Hill Cumorah, places that the Smith family lived or owned, the Carthage jail, or other sites significant to church history.

We’re talking about assets valued at well over 30 billion dollars and an annual income somewhere north of $5.9 billion dollars and that’s without counting any tithing income. My estimates of ‘tens of millions of dollars of unreported income’ are likely well below their actual numbers, but we’ll never really know since the church managed to deceive the US government into thinking it was a legitimate religion.

Returning Home,

I’m not interested in debating whether or not your claims are true. I’m just saying, whatever claims you make must be supported. Cite your sources, please.

Anna

 

[SirThomasMore]

Returning Home,

I’m not interested in debating whether or not your claims are true. I’m just saying, whatever claims you make must be supported. Cite your sources, please.

Anna

Don;t believe his sources need to be cited here because they are simple math based on Mormon rules.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Returning Home,

While I disagree with just about every aspect of Mormon theology; I would caution you to be careful in making claims you are unable to support–such as “tens of millions of dollars of unreported income” are making Mormons rich.

Anna

Unsupported claims? Hardly.

Let’s assume that the church’s claims of having 13 million members is correct. And let’s then assume that only half of all members tithe properly. We’re now talking about 6.5 million members tithing 10% of their income. With high-visibility members like Gladys Knight, Steve Young, Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, the Osmond family, Glen Beck, Orson Scott Card, Stephen Covey, and Stephenie Meyer, we’re already talking about a lot of theoretical capital. Odds are that being in the public eye, the pressure is on them to tithe their proper amounts.

While the church has been able to hide what it makes as income from tithing, its publicly traded church-owned companies have to report theirs. As of 1996, the church owned 16 radio stattions, one television station (FCC rules forbid owning more than one), the largest beef ranch in all of America (Deseret Ranch in Orlano, FL, the land alone is valued at $858 million), the Polynesian Cultural Center in Hawaii (annual revenue of at least $40 million), AgReserves and ArgriNorthwest farms and ranches, BYU (Provo, Hawaii, and Jerusalem) and Ricks (ID) college campuses, and of course the other Deseret companies that produce clothing, food, and printed products. We also have the dozens of church-owned historical sites that generate money through admissions, donations, and gift sales like the gift shop at the base of Hill Cumorah, places that the Smith family lived or owned, the Carthage jail, or other sites significant to church history.

We’re talking about assets valued at well over 30 billion dollars and an annual income somewhere north of $5.9 billion dollars and that’s without counting any tithing income. My estimates of ‘tens of millions of dollars of unreported income’ are likely well below their actual numbers, but we’ll never really know since the church managed to deceive the US government into thinking it was a legitimate religion.

Returning Home,

I’m not interested in debating whether or not your claims are true. I’m just saying, whatever claims you make must be supported. Cite your sources, please.

Anna

Don;t believe his sources need to be cited here because they are simple math based on Mormon rules.

SirThomasMore,

I’m actually trying to help. Please see Forum Rules: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2

#3 of Forum Content Rules: “Discussion of a controversial news event must reference at least one publicly-available news report on the subject. This can be in the form of a link, a partial quote and a link, or a posted photo (as appropriate).”

Anna