Thoughtful letters from one LDS family who set out to find the truth

3,033 Views | 107 Replies | Last: 18 yr ago by The Lone Stranger
groove
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
You tend not to make allies when you declare that those churches are full or false doctrine.


That's what Christian reform groups do – they say: "we are the true faith." We make no apologies about the fact we believe that we have a restoration of truth. But those sorts of claims are substantially different than dedicating resources to attack other faiths. And it is factually false that we believe that other faiths are "full of false doctrines." In fact quite the opposite.

And bringing up nineteenth century religious polemic in the context of twenty-first century dialogue isn't going to help you either. Most of the time, those statements were responding to the largely Protestant mobs who had driven LDS members from state to state, murdering their leaders. Some of these were led by Protestant preachers whose rhetoric was laced with references to "extermination" and willing to describe Mormons as subhuman.

I regret that there were some angry and bitter things that were said, sometimes, by some LDS leaders. But it is a falsehood that the tough talk was one-sided. It was absolutely not.

Mercifully, times have changed.

The truthfulness of the claims of more traditional Christian factions necessarily entail the incorrectness of the claims of my church. But you won't see us publishing anything remotely comparable to "The Godmakers" against evangelical faiths. I have never once attended an LDS meeting that was devoted, even in part, to attacking anybody else's faith. We regularly have magazine articles promoting tolerance and understanding. I don't think the same can be said for the other side of the aisle.

If evangelicals and others feel what they teach and believe is correct then by all means, they should argue forcefully and with vigor about their philosophical concept of deity, and the completeness of Biblical revelation. But again, this is substantially different than asserting that LDS are Satanists, going to hell, that our beliefs are a crude joke, that we can't nominally call ourselves Christians, and that our leaders are liars and thieves. You won't see anything comparable to the images and video I posted on the other thread -- and any members found doing such things would likely be told to stop immediately at the peril of their membership.

In todays modern context, there is nothing on the LDS side comparable to what we have to put up with. Attempts to make the LDS look like offenders are disingenuous at best.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 9/6/2007 11:56p).]
05AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
The short answer is that's not what we believe.

When you have time I want to know why?

Your not here to try to convert people especially since it is a internet board? Shouldn't you ALWAYS be willing and able to teach people God's truth by whatever means of communication God has blessed us with? What if this was the oppotunity one was given to hear truth, shouldn't you "preach" it?


_______________________________________________________
"You see character does count. For too long we have gotten by in a society that says the only thing right is to get by and the only thing wrong is to get caught. Character is doing what's right when nobody is looking. " -JC Watts
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
You may have thought it was unfair but this was cause for national news. Can you imagine the uproar if such a large number of our members refused to follow such basic Church doctrine and refused to follow the Prophet's counsel?

Once again Genesisag reads facts into a story that simply were not there. What a surprise.
Fightin TX Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Orson Pratt had it right when he talked about what should be done if Mormonism was found to be a fraud:
quote:
If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments upon which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of the deception, and be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion, may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments--by evidences adduced from scripture and reason. Such, and such only, should be the weapons employed to detect and overthrow false doctrines--to reclaim mankind from their errors, to expose religious enthusiasm, and put to silence base and wicked impostors.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/OP-BOM.html
El Sid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This family had some gripping drama earlier this year. When the mom's brain finally "clicked" - when she finally knew that Joseph Smith's church was a house of cards - she did not dilly-dally. She sought out people who had made the same discovery, and she agonized over what do to about her son who was on his LDS mission.

Should she allow him to continue on his mission, when she now knew that the church was a fraud?? This was a gut wrenching decision that she and her husband wrestled with. Finally, they decided they could not allow their son to continue on for another year while they had discovered the truth. They had to tell him!

They jumped on a plane and flew out to his mission field. (You would not believe the restrictions on families' abilities to phone or contact active missionaries. A personal visit was their best bet.)

The story of what happened next is compelling - and the missionary himself had a very interesting dream the night before mom and dad came to the rescue. Pretty amazing stuff.
uriah923
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have no interest in pretending (through some convoluted understanding of church organization and the nature of prophets which many seem to want to force on Mormons) the LDS Church has held as official doctrine that which it clearly hasn't. Assuming however, the inquiries as to Brigham Young's teachings are genuine, consider the following.

There are numerous ways in which apologists view the Adam-God theory. (Plenty of reading here: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai002.html) The most important thing, however, is the doctrine of the church has never officially included the Adam-God theory.

Concerning Brigham Young's statement about what should be done when a WHITE man has sexual relations with one of his black female slaves, it is just that: a discussion of the seriousness of the common interracial, extramarital affairs among slave owners. A thorough discussion of the issue is available here: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/blacks_chosen.htm

Lastly, I'll give more attention to the blood atonement issue, given its recent coverage at the box office. The most obvious issue is the lack of significant evidence. Given there were hundreds/thousands of those who would have qualified to be killed under the alleged teaching who continued to live and even be successful while immersed in LDS society, it's apparent either the teachings of Brigham Young have been misconstrued to be something the Mormons at the time didn't understand them to be, or those Mormons all simply chose to disobey the prophet. Neither case bodes well for an anti-Mormon attempting to use the "blood atonement" bit, as it does not allow one to group the Mormons or their church as being categorically evil.

A similar sentiment was expressed in an official statement by the First Presidency in 1889:

"Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury.

"We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the Church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed."

(Offical Declaration, 12 December 1889)

Without evidence within LDS culture concerning any sort of prevalent violence, and with an official statement from the highest church leaders which has stood for over 115 years - on what leg do you posit the blood atonement criticism to stand?

More information on the blood atonement issue:
http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_Brigham_Young_Say_He_Would_Kill_an_Adulterous_Wife_with_a_Javelin.html
http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=31
http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Blood_atonement

Finally, be particularly wary of quote mining when quoting Brigham Young - especially given his thoughts expressed in a sermon given February 18, 1855:

"In my conversation, I shall talk and act as I please. Still I am always aware, when speaking in public, that there are those present who are disposed to find fault with this people, and to try to raise a prejudice against them; and they will pick up isolated words and sentences, and put them together to suit themselves, and send forth a garbled version to prejudice the world against us. Such a course I never care anything about; for I have frequently said, spoken words are but wind, and when they are spoken are gone; consequently I take liberties in speaking which I do not allow when I commit my sentiments to writing." (Journal of Discourses 2:179)
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dude, BY wrote in the JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES...which is "scripture" last time I checked that if the church ever abandones polygamy it will cease being the church.

Here he says that the Journal is Scripture....
quote:
"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 264; see also page 95.)


Here is says that none of his counsel has ever been false...so much for the non-prophetic speaking errors...
quote:
"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.)


Oops...this is "scripture" coming directly from the Prophet and Seer of God remember....
quote:
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).


Adam is God? What? Why did Mormons abandon this belief less than 150 years after BY? Wasn't he a prophet writing scripture?
quote:
"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).


How is THAT reconciled on Fair/wiki?

It's easy to sweep certain off hand comments of BY under the rug...but you can't sweep this "scripture" under the rug.
El Sid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Neither case bodes well for an anti-Mormon attempting to use the "blood atonement" bit, as it does not allow one to group the Mormons or their church as being categorically evil.
Wow, there's a lot packed into that sentence.

First, I think the term anti-Mormon is very broad and poorly defined. I have never seen an "anti-Mormon" on this forum.

More importantly, I have never seen anyone here try to argue that Mormons or their church are "categorically evil." Most agree that Mormons are good people - in fact are very good people.

What we argue here is that the Mormon church is not what it claims to be. It is not God's one true church. It has no restored truth. It is false, an invention of Joseph Smith, and the LDS faithful are misled and victimized by the fraud of Joseph Smith.

Now, as to Brigham Young and Adam-God. It is unimportant to me whether the doctrine was ever official. Although many believed it historically, it was probably never church doctrine. This argument, though, misses the point. FairWiki doesn't deny that Brigham taught Adam/God and does not deny that many Mormons or some Mormons followed along.

Here is the point:

Brigham was supposed to be God's one prophet - the one man on earth closer than any other to God Almighty.

And he misidentified his God?

Even if he did so "unofficially," it makes it really hard to believe that he was the one man on earth closest to Heavenly Father.

[This message has been edited by El Sid (edited 9/7/2007 3:34p).]
05AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Most agree that Mormons are good people - in fact are very good people

I agree with this. I think that all of us could take a page out of their book and dedicate ourselves EVERYDAY to teaching others the truth like they do during their two year ministry trip.
It is my earnest prayer that something is said or done to help the mormons see the deception of the church.

_______________________________________________________
"You see character does count. For too long we have gotten by in a society that says the only thing right is to get by and the only thing wrong is to get caught. Character is doing what's right when nobody is looking. " -JC Watts
groove
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Dude, BY wrote in the JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES...which is "scripture" last time I checked that if the church ever abandones polygamy it will cease being the church.


The Journal of Discourses never has been and never will be scripture.

This is the classic arrogant anti-mormon attempt to tell me that they somehow know what I believe better than I do. Seamaster, do you really enjoy it when people attempt to tell you what you really believe about the Pope's infallibility or any number of anti-Catholic arguments?
groove
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I have never seen an "anti-Mormon" on this forum.


Look in the mirror.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Grove,

Why are you distanting yourself from the words of your prophet?

"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 264; see also page 95.)

And, the Pope doesn't claim to be a prophet...nor does he claim some kind of direct contact with Jesus Christ. We don't have the same problem that you have.

[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 9/7/2007 2:25p).]
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Brigham Young, the PROPHET of God...taught that Adam was God.

Show me a Pope that taught such heresy and did so admittedly infallibly and I'll give you a dollar.
Liam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I personally don't like the anti-mormon tag much either, even when it is applicable. I don't know if some of you qualify as anti-mormons, but definitely several of you (easily identified by your rapid attraction to any LDS post) definitely have some strange axe to grind.
groove
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They aren't scripture. Period. Quit trying to pretend you know more about my faith than I do. By your cut and paste of something which doesn't say what you think it says, you obviously don't.

quote:
Show me a Pope that taught such heresy and did so admittedly infallibly and I'll give you a dollar.


Re-read my post and see if it had anything to do with telling you what the Pope said. I asked you if you enjoyed it when other people attempt to tell you what you believe.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 9/7/2007 2:35p).]
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with Brigham Young.

quote:
"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 [discourse] 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, Vol. 13, Page 95)" (Journal of Discourses"


Don't get angry with me. Don't shoot the messanger. It's nice and convenient for your church leaders to shy away from what Brigham Young taught in 2007.


Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Re-read my post and see if it had anything to do with telling you what the Pope said. I asked you if you enjoyed it when other people attempt to tell you what you believe.


Respectfully, I don't really care when this happens. I just defend the truth.

I really want to know how you reconcile what BY said...which is said is as good as anything that says, "THUS SAYS THE LORD..." and the church's current stance on the Adam/God theology, polygamy etc.
groove
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Seamaster... I am trying to put this as gently as possible, but you really have no clue what you are talking about here. I have seen your posts elsewhere, and I don't think you are being intentionally malicious, but you are definitely being played.

The quote you just pasted from who knows where is highly redacted. Portions of that single quote are over 100 pages from each other in the original text. Let me show you some of the original:

quote:
"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, Vol. 13, Page 95)


That was the first part. Note the bolded portions that your version of the quote omits. Now first ask yourself: If the case against Brigham Young is so rock solid, why would someone intentionally omit these portions of the text? If they are omitting important facts, how far are you going to trust them?

Now, riddle me this. Of Brigham Young's sermons in the JoD, how many did he get a chance to revise and correct? The answer is: none. So therefore on that test alone, it cannot be considered scripture. In the second bolded portion he states that to be considered scripture they need to be identified as such.

There are many other reasons as well (not the least of which is that the LDS Church has a formal way of incorporating what is supposed to be scripture in to our canon -- and JoD has certainly not gone through this). But that alone should suffice anyone who is looking at this without an axe to grind.

quote:
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. " (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.264)


Note that the second part is well over 100 pages away from the first part of your quote. Again, ask yourself if your source is giving you the entire story.


Here are some other important things to know about the Journal of Discourses:

1. There has never been any endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of it's contents by the church authority. It consists of transcribed reports not written by the people speaking.

2. It was never even published by the Church.

3. It was transcribed from mostly informal meetings at a time when the early theology of the Church was being established. You do not expect to be held accountable to every facet and heresy of the first 4 ceturies AD while your faith was establishing it's theology. We ought to be given the same courtesy.

4. It is a myth that our leaders (including the Prophet) to be infallible. Prophets are entitled to their own opinions, prejudices, and errors, just like everybody else.

quote:
Respectfully, I don't really care when this happens. I just defend the truth.


Resepctfully, I didn't ask you if you paid attention to it. I asked you if you liked or approved of the method. Well, that's what you are doing here. I have to say that, on the whole, I enjoy talking about my faith, but being denied the basic priviledge of telling others what I believe is fairly annoying.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 9/7/2007 3:05p).]
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
grove, with all due respect, how do you know BY didn't copy and approve them?

It sounds, in reading his statements, that he did.
groove
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The short answer is that they were published in England by the stenographer George D. Watt and were never submitted for review. Now their publication was endoesed by the church, and there were many enthusiastic supporters, but they were never reviewed for doctrinal accuracy or revision.

They are valuable for history and for understanding what some of the early leaders said. Some parts invariably contain true doctrine, but this is only because they are backed by other revelations or teaching or canon. The JoD has never been considered part of the LDS canon.

It is obviously a favorite poaching ground for enemies of the Church. But this is just religious polemic.

The official church position on the JoD is as Follows:

quote:
"The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It includes practical advice as well as doctrinal discussion, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest. ... Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine."


[This message has been edited by groove (edited 9/7/2007 3:32p).]
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for your honesty and forthrightness. You are by far and away the most resonable Mormon on the board.

However, I still question what BY said about never giving false counsel...and then preaching that Adam was God. How do you view that?
El Sid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As to Brigham Young and Adam-God. It is unimportant to me whether the doctrine was ever official. Although many believed it historically, it was probably never church doctrine. This argument, though, misses the point. FairWiki doesn't deny that Brigham taught Adam/God and does not deny that many Mormons or some Mormons followed along.

Here is the point:

Brigham was supposed to be God's one prophet - the one man on earth closer than any other to God Almighty.

And he misidentified his God?

Even if he did so "unofficially," it makes it really hard to believe that he was the one man on earth closest to Heavenly Father.
TxAgKuwait
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
4. It is a myth that our leaders (including the Prophet) to be infallible. Prophets are entitled to their own opinions, prejudices, and errors, just like everybody else.


To put it quite simply, that is the biggest cop out, whitewash job, cognitive dissonance piece of apologetic nonsense I've ever seen on here...and I have seen quite a bit.

What you are saying, basically, is that what the prophet says is true except when he is wrong.

Riddle me this, Batman....How can you tell when he is right and when he is not?

Is Gordon Hinckley telling the truth when he instructs women to only wear one earring in each ear? If he is, fine....but if he is speaking as a man and not as a prophet....maybe your women folk need to rush out to a jewelry store and hang 3 or 4 earrings in each lobe.\

I thought you guys said God would not allow the prophet to lead you astray. If BY's so called doctrine on blood atonement, required polygamy, and Adam=God was not really doctrine, why in the heck did God allow him to lead folks in that direction?

Here's the real deal.....you guys have a lot of good, moral folks in your church. Congrats. That doesn't mean that you haven;t fallen for a lie, hook, line, and sinker. What your church has taught in the past (and which now is deemed indefensible) is covered up, assuaged, or otherwise attributed to the prophet "speaking as a man." Sorry, but that's a crock.
groove
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
To put it quite simply, that is the biggest cop out, whitewash job, cognitive dissonance piece of apologetic nonsense I've ever seen on here...


Whatever. You can take your toys and go home now if you like, but that is the way it is with the LDS faith. Last time I checked, nowhere do we claim prophet = demi god. Of course this may be inconvenient for you, because it means that false unreachable standard for prophethood you like to gnash at all the time is simply a fluffy polemical straw man.

Prophets have always been good but fallible people trying to understand something that is beyond human comprehension. They are fallen men like the rest of us who happen to have been given a holy calling. They have to wrestle with their own spirituality and understanding as it always has been from Biblical times until now.

quote:
What you are saying, basically, is that what the prophet says is true except when he is wrong.


Nope. Thats not what I am saying at all.

quote:
Riddle me this, Batman....How can you tell when he is right and when he is not?


If you really made a study of Mormon beliefs instead of just pretending to, you would know the answer.

I would suggest starting your journey here:
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

I also partially gave you an answer in a thread a while back to which you did not even respond. First, we have an established canon of doctrine. It is an open canon, meaning it can be changed, but it is a standard by which doctrine can be judged. Most prophetic statements don't exist in a vacuum either. This is one reason why there were so many angelic visions and heaven openings and such in the early church. Once the basic restoration doctrines had been established they became part of a body of revelation, and a context for seeing new doctrine.

Joseph Smith understood this:

quote:
"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."


That's the real bottom line. Thats what we live our lives by and what matters. That is what we talk about in our meetings and make the focus of our Family Home Evenings. We have a bunch of other things which enrich our experience and help us meaningfully understand God better and our place in the universe, and progress in necessary ways. We do believe we have a larger picture, but there are limits to that picture. And where people have gone on to speculate, it doesn't change the core doctrine.

The next important piece to this is the fact that in the LDS faith, the revelation doesn't come solely to the president of the church. Rather, it infuses the entire church. Everyone is entitled to receive revelation for their own positions, be it father, bishop, sunday school teacher, or whatever it is. And that extends from church doctrine to political statements.

This is supported by the statement referenced above: "Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine."

quote:
If BY's so called doctrine on blood atonement, required polygamy, and Adam=God was not really doctrine, why in the heck did God allow him to lead folks in that direction?


And by all of the LDS you see every day around you practicing blood atonement or worshiping Adam in our meetings you can really see how far that went! ....Wait, we don't (and never have) do any of that "blood atonement" stuff and I don't recall any sort of Adam worship in our meetings... hmmm. Gee, maybe the saints weren't led astray.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 9/7/2007 4:27p).]
AGinHI
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
To put it quite simply, that is the biggest cop out, whitewash job, cognitive dissonance piece of apologetic nonsense I've ever seen on here...and I have seen quite a bit.


cognitive dissonance "is a state of tension that occurs whenever an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent."

-Elliot Aronson in the The Social Animal discussing Leon Festinger's famous theory.

kokiri
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Do you think people would be equally interested in a thoughtful and well-written post about why I left the Catholic Church after I set out to find the truth?


I would.

Actually I might be more interested, because all the ex-Mormon stuff starts to run together after a while.
groove
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Incidentally, for those few who really want to know more about this issue which has been hashed and re-hashed for the better part of a hundred years, you can take a look at the following.

It is one of several analyses of the Adam god issue, but it also has a side by side comparison (it is near the end of the article) of a talk given by Brigham Young as it was recorded in the JoD versus how the same exact talk was recorded in Wilford Woodruff's (an LDS apostle and future prophet) journal. As the article points out, there are several important differences, which again, emphasizes the point about there having been no review/revision process for the Journal.

It also nicely illustrates the problem of textual reliability in the Journal of Discourses.

Beware, this is a somewhat long article, and may actually require thought:

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

I also think Uriah's quote of Brigham Young above bears repeating:

quote:
"In my conversation, I shall talk and act as I please. Still I am always aware, when speaking in public, that there are those present who are disposed to find fault with this people, and to try to raise a prejudice against them; and they will pick up isolated words and sentences, and put them together to suit themselves, and send forth a garbled version to prejudice the world against us. Such a course I never care anything about; for I have frequently said, spoken words are but wind, and when they are spoken are gone; consequently I take liberties in speaking which I do not allow when I commit my sentiments to writing."


[This message has been edited by groove (edited 9/7/2007 5:50p).]
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Grove, when, if ever, does a prophet speak infallibly. Is an LDS member ever certain that what a prophet speaks is true?
groove
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As I have alluded to earlier, we are a young religion. The LDS faith as a response to the creedal foundations of more traditional Christians has meant that we have resisted systematizing our theology like some other faiths. What that means is that we do not have anything like Papal ex cathedra teachings which imprint a "guarantee" infallibility.

This is an important point because many critics try and portray the LDS Church as working via an ex cathedra model.

Instead, I think the best way to look at things is that LDS teachings exist on a continuum, from fringe speculation to solid canonical beliefs. So how do we know what is doctrine? As I mentioned above, there are two sides to the process: one is on the teaching side from the prophets and apostles, and the second is on the side of each individual believer who is to receive their own wtiness about the truthfullness of the teaching.

From the teacher side, the first thing is that teachings are understood in the context of what has already been revealed. We believe that truth is truth, and eternal principles aren't going to change. The measuring sticks here are the core scriptures or "Standard Works" (The Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and ratified proclamations). One of our prophets, Joseph Fielding Smith stated: "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside."

The next part of the teacher side of things is the concept of common consent. A prophet can add to the canon, but such additions are presented to other members of the First Presidency and twelve Apostles, and then to the body of the church to be sustained. These doctrines are typically voted upon in the semi-annual General Conference.

Now from the believer standpoint is this notion of personal revelation -- that each person is entitled to a witness of the truthfullness of the doctrine being taught. We are encouraged to pray and receive a spiritual witness about what has been taught. In this fashion, even something received in Sunday School can be confirmed individually as "scripture." There are rules and hierarchy for this kind of revelation. For example a regular member cannot suddenly receive a revelation that the Church needs to do things a certain way. Individuals are entitled to receive revelation about things under their stewardship. So a Bishop can receive revelation for his congregation, a father can receive revelation for his family members etc.

We can see LDS teachings across this entire continuum. For example The Book of Mormon is canon -- a yardstick. But we also have doctrines in evolution. For example, The First Presidency relatively recently issued a Proclamation on the Family. This proclamation would not be considered scripture but it is awfully close. I would predict that over the next several years we will see that proclamation incorporated into the scriptures via the processes above.

What about other teachings? Well, there is a whole slew of teachings by prophets and apostles that don't quite rise to the level of canon, but they are certainly considered with a good degree of authority or deference. Examples might be the King Follet Discourse, or Joseph Smith's Lectures on Faith etc. Many annual conference talks might fall into this category. These sources enjoy support from multiple sources (i.e. have been referenced by many prophets and apostles with apporval, and are incorporated into general church teachings). Still, these teachings are subordinate to the measuring sticks of Standard Works.

Then there are other sources which may be valuable but less authoritative. Some of the books by General Authorities might fall into this category.

Then there are isolated sermons or other works which are mainly in the speculative realm. They do not enjoy established support of canon, and many have been outright repudiated. They contain some truths but again, only insofar as they conform to the revealed canon. Examples here would be some of the sermons from the JoD, Orson Pratt's The Seer, and many others.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 9/7/2007 6:46p).]
Fightin TX Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some LDS even seem to think that this Jesus fellow must be O.K. -- after all, Joseph Smith sometimes spoke kindly of him.
DJ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think Fightin TX Aggie might be onto something. Maybe the idea that every LDS member accepts Christ as their Savior every Sunday suggests they may have some sort of affinity for Him.

Thank you Groove for providing the actual context for some of the JD "quotes" that have been bantered about on this thread. Sort of makes one wonder why a sincere truth-seeker would find it necessary to doctor quotes so extensively, however.

As I read the enthusiastic assaults launched against the LDS Church and its beliefs on this board, I am reminded of the words of Gamaliel when confronted in another time and place with people claiming revelation, authority, and, gasp, apostleship that flew in the face of the accepted theology of the day:
quote:
35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:25-39)

Of course it's a whole lot more fun to throw mud (and unfortunately for Steven) rocks rather than look for the good in others. So those learned theologians who cried "blasphemy!" at Christian beliefs kept at it, thinking all the while they "doeth God service" (John 16:2).

So Seamaster, El Sid, and others who seem to also sincerely belive you are doing "God service" with your onslaught of polemics, keep on chuckin' those rocks. But please, please, quit demonstrating your ignorance by cutting and pasting rehashed, edited and worn out nonsense generated by unscrupulous individuals.

And one more thing El Sid. Quoting dissatisfied and disaffected Mormons to smugly illuminate the supposed fallacy of Mormonism carries with it all the credibility of using Judas to demonstrate why Jesus couldn't be the Son of God.
Nixter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
So Seamaster, El Sid, and others who seem to also sincerely belive you are doing "God service" with your onslaught of polemics, keep on chuckin' those rocks. But please, please, quit demonstrating your ignorance by cutting and pasting rehashed, edited and worn out nonsense generated by unscrupulous individuals.
You chastise them for "chuckin' rocks" and then do the same yourself. The fallback argument of 'unscrupulous individuals' is tired and betrays an inability to actually counter their arguments in a logical, sound manner. I don't care how you choose to dress your arguments, they are virtually identical to the nonsensical ramblings of ibmagg.
Nixter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Quoting dissatisfied and disaffected Mormons to smugly illuminate the supposed fallacy of Mormonism carries with it all the credibility of using Judas to demonstrate why Jesus couldn't be the Son of God.
There's a good example of what I was talking about. You compare these people, whose letters actually contain arguments and genuine points of concern to Judas, a man who sold out Christ for a little cash. Like I said, your post was dressed better than ibm's screed but it's just lipstick on a pig.

[This message has been edited by Nixter (edited 9/8/2007 2:43a).]
groove
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
The fallback argument of 'unscrupulous individuals' is tired and betrays an inability to actually counter their arguments in a logical, sound manner


With all due respect. I cannot see how putting forth a quote to support one's position which intentionally omits important exculpatory details and re-writes the text in such an egregious fashion as Seamaster's example above evidences "scrupulous" criticism. To be fair, again, I don't think Seamaster was being intentionally malicious, but I don't hold the same for his sources.

I also don't see how a fair observer can just wave someone pointing out that sort of dishonesty away as "tired" and irrelevant. On the contrary, such examples are very relevant to the foundations and strength of the arguments used by individuals and organizations doing the criticizing. I think it is fairly safe to assume that if one has to do that much redacting and textual rearrangement to obtain a strong enough argument, then the argument wasn't very strong to begin with. And it ought to call into question the reliability of other same source arguments which are less easilly testable.

As for terminology, in the case above, I think "unscrupulous" would be a rather charitable assesment for that kind of fabricated mishmash.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 9/8/2007 4:17a).]
El Sid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have not fabricated anything here. I have not quoted any unscrupulous person. I have presented the personal and reasoned testimony of some long time Mormons who figured out many of the things that have been discussed on this forum before.

Her arguments are not tired or false. They are questions that have not been and cannot be satis factorily answered by the Mormon church.

I have also asked a question about Adam-God that no LDS poster has responded to:
quote:
As to Brigham Young and Adam-God. It is unimportant to me whether the doctrine was ever official. Although many believed it historically, it was probably never church doctrine. This argument, though, misses the point. FairWiki doesn't deny that Brigham taught Adam/God and does not deny that many Mormons or some Mormons followed along.

Here is the point:

Brigham was supposed to be God's one prophet - the one man on earth closer than any other to God Almighty.

And he misidentified his God?

Even if he did so "unofficially," it makes it really hard to believe that he was the one man on earth closest to Heavenly Father.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.