BYU Professors vs. LDS Leaders: Who Has Authority to Interpret Doctrine for Members?

Bill McKeever talks about the importance of looking to published statements of the LDS institution as more representative of Mormonism than neo-orthodox writings of BYU professors.

1920×1080 MP4, 640×360 MP4

This entry was posted in Authority and Doctrine and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to BYU Professors vs. LDS Leaders: Who Has Authority to Interpret Doctrine for Members?

  1. mobaby says:


    What if we juxtaposed the verses from the BOM on paintings of the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Or on images of depressed desperate polygamous wives. Or we could showcase one of Joseph Smith’s brides and the spiritual affect he had on their lives when he tore them away from their husbands under the threat of being cast out of heaven. Today, there are those in polygamous sects who follow (more closely than the main LDS church) Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s teachings on polygamy – and so the devastation that this philosophy wrought continues to bring heartache into the lives of many. Ultimately, I fear the final dejection that Joseph Smith’s followers will face due to their rejection of the one true God of the scriptures, who has been replaced in the LDS religion with a mere exalted man – a false god not even holding a candle to the the all powerful creator and redeemer of all that exists. Has Mormon theology and teaching truly only brought goodness? I see much that undermines that idea when objectively reviewing the facts. What truly was and is the fruit of Joseph Smith? I think the answer is bad fruit, you think it is good, but the least that can honestly be said is that Joseph Smith’s work is ambiguous at best.

  2. Berean says:


    Your stunned? Your insult wasn’t personal? Get real. You mentioned Bill McKeever personally by adding letters to his name which makes you look silly. When you mention someone by name it’s personal. You won’t get an apology from me for calling you out on your goofy and snide remarks on the “Billy” (said more than once) and the “McKeevster” line. Trying to redirect and deflect this off of yourself and back to me and others on here is even more childish. You owe Bill McKeever an apology. Swallow your pride and take it up with him. The “persecution complex” isn’t going to work. Neither is the drama making this all about you – whine, whine, whine. Anyone reading your remark above knows that your line about Bill McKeever is condescending.

    Yeah, it’s noble in what I said. No, rating yourself 5 stars after you post doesn’t count.

    Scroll back up and tackle the issue that I raised regarding Millet’s attempts of making Mormonism’s “different Jesus” the same as the Christian Jesus when LDS GA’s have said that it is not.

    Address the topic and leave people’s names with your personal twist out of it. It’s the internet. Most people don’t like to give their name out. You want to give out your last name? I like Berean because of the text in Acts 17:10-12 and it describes me spiritually in one respect. You see, that’s what Bereans do: they pay attention to details and in what people say. They notice the small things and test it and hold people accountable for those statements. Outside of that I have nothing to hide. My email address is listed. I don’t see many people doing that. If someone emails me they will know my full name. My first name is Andrew. Most people call me “Andy”. Have a nice day.

    [email protected]

  3. falcon says:

    Well so we visit again the wonderful world of the Mormon doctrinal shuffle. It’s a dance step favored by Mormons who are stuck trying to defend a religion that has rightly been characterized as a Maze. Trying to find consistancy in Mormon teaching and doctrine is a challenge that many of us Christians here have taken up and have learned that Mormonism is like a “where’s Waldo” puzzle. I’ve asked several times in the past months for Mormons to show me directly where I am wrong on anything I say they teach. I’ve yet to have a Mormon take me up on the offer. You see it’s because Mormonism is something you’ve got to “feel” and be committed to emotionally. If a person does that, then Mormonism becomes a Wonderful World of OZ experience. In this world even Joseph Smith’s taking of other men’s wives and bedding adolecent girls becomes a holy, righteous and unselfish act on his part. I mean wouldn’t the average man do that too if an angel with a flaming sword told you he was going to kill you if you didn’t do it? You see you have to ignore that stuff because it’s just not relevent and it makes you “feel” bad when you think about it…….and every good Mormon knows the drill……good feeling=true………bad feeling=false. Well I get a real bad feeling about Mormonism. Draw your own conclusions.

  4. Amanda says:

    Mobaby, thank you for actually addressing the content of my remarks!

    I knew that one was coming 🙂 Well, I’d be glad to see any juxtaposition of the BoM with any REAL images you have of the MMM-photos of Joseph Smith with his alleged wives on their wedding day–etc. I think that would be fair (Hollywood images don’t count). But even then, the MMM was over 100 years ago- not exactly a current event like the images in FITNA. I’m already bored with that one, mo.

    you said, “What truly was and is the fruit of Joseph Smith? I think the answer is bad fruit, you think it is good, but the least that can honestly be said is that Joseph Smith’s work is ambiguous at best. ”

    You believe that your opinions of doctrine are evidence of bad fruit. Fruit comes after the planting of a seed- and the constant nurturing of that seed. It’s a process of faith. When you humbly allow that process to take place, you will experience the fruit that I speak of.


    I’m having a hard time keeping up with all of these ‘small things’ that I need to work on…could you compile a list for me in a word document? That way we can skip all the other nonsense and get down to business.

    I’m sure this isn’t the first time your ego has exhausted a reader, and recipient of your Berean berating. Frankly, God is my judge— how’s that for ‘sola scriptura’?

    It appears you are a lone crusader. You are unaware of the relationships I have already established on this site that have been going on 2 years now. I’m officially over it and will rate this comment 5 stars, too! GO AMANDA! Ok, NOW I’m over it.


    My conclusion is that YOU get bad feelings about mormonism. Why not move on? You seem to dwell an awful lot on the negative by posting here so much.


    I hear time and time again that LDS are not Christian–we say the BoM testifies of Christ–Evangelicals conveniently claim it is a different Christ–we claim it has to be of Christ because of the fruits–and you offer opinions, at best, that these fruits do not exist–or that the Devil has produced a counterfeit–and if THAT is true, then there are no good fruits in my life that stem from the gospel or the fruits I have in my life would be wickedness and abominations of all kinds! I know the last two are completely false! So if it is not of the devil, and I have experienced good fruits from a book that testifies of Christ, what then??

    These arguments produce no actual answers or clarity–only more questions-that’s why people go back and forth, back and forth– and ev’s always complain about more questions they have in their minds…. These are the fruits of skepticism, not faith.

    Peace out,


  5. falcon says:

    So the question posed here is “Who gets to interpret Mormon doctrine?” The correct answer is “Anybody who wants to.” Mormons are very proud of the fact that they don’t have a systematic theology. That’s why we get a lot of “counts” “doesn’t count” responses from Mormons. Mormonism isn’t about relevant facts or evidence. It’s all about revelation and feeling. Feeling, of course, is the “God told me so” position which, when you think of it, pretty much ends the discussion, right? I mean if God tells you so, there really isn’t any room for discussion. So these BYU types can get into a free flow of consciousness and make themselves sound like mainstream Christians and Mormons quote them high and wide to continue the subtrefuge and the GAs could care less because it’s all about PR and spin any way. That’s why you get Gordon Hinckley unable to come up with the right answer regarding whether or not Mormonism teaches that men can become gods. It’s all about how “can we fool them today.” So if Joseph Smith says that the moon is populated by six foot tall men that dress like Pilrims, who cares? It doesn’t matter! So when it comes to Mormon doctrine and what someone says about it, it’s irrelevent. Just keep repeating I believe Joseph Smith is a prophet of god and the Mormon church is true and keep sending in your 10% and by all means keep the emotional groove on. Doctrine is no fun any way! It just gets in the way.

  6. falcon says:

    I what?????????”……get an awful lot on the negative by posting here??????? Well here we go again. What we do here is disect Mormonism; it’s doctrine, teachings and practices. Of course the TBMs are going to get all offended because someone actually tells it the way it is about Mormonism. What is presented here are facts backed by documented evidence. Let’s go back to the quote from “A Few Good Men”; “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!” We’ve all seen the Mormon persecution complex on display here often. Besides, Mormons are taught to do two things if something appears to them to be negative; give their testimony and run away. Negative, in a Mormon context, is anything that directly and bluntly questions Mormonism.
    When it comes to Mormonism, it’s doctrines, practices and history,I don’t get all smoochie and call for group hugs. There are plenty of websites that do that and I don’t think the approach really serves anyone well especially Mormons. If our readers notice, I don’t go after people in a personal way.
    So why do I do this. Because the Bible tells us to instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines. The Bible also tells us to defend the faith. And by the way, there are plenty of atheists in this world that live wholesome moral lives. Does that attest that what they believe is true? I am well aware of the friuts of Mormonism. Do a liitle research and find out about the incidence of child abuse and the use of prescription drugs (mother’s little helpers) out there in Happy Valley.

  7. mrgermit says:

    Mandy Blandster :

    we should ALL rate ourselves 5 KOLOBS……life is way too short for a two star day….thanks for the reminder.

    grace and rest to all who love the LAMB

    the GERMIT

    anyone want to know how long it took GERMIT to figure out who “drewster” is ??? the MENSA folks want to revoke my rights…….

  8. Amanda says:


    HAHAHAHA! I love it. I had to give you five kolobs for that one. We can’t take ourselves too seriously without appearing foolish.

    By the way, I’m a member of the lesser known MENSA:
    Mormon Enthusiast, Not Satan’s Advocate

    Thanks for the humor, it was refreshing.


    I don’t have a problem with you questioning Mormonism! I see a discrepancy between why you say you are here and what you are actually here doing. You say, “The Bible also tells us to defend the faith,” but no one is attacking your faith on this blog. Defending THE faith doesn’t mean you blog incessantly on websites that put OTHER faiths on the defensive. That part I find a bit confusing…that is the reason I am here, to defend the faith–not attack yours. And to the extent that I do, I’m in the wrong. I’ve made that mistake a few times.


    I feel the need to clarify my comment about planting seeds. I’m sure, as a Christian, that you have already experienced this process. When people challenge your faith in Christ, I’m sure you can set aside their accusations easily when depending on your own journey in His gospel. I think with that perspective, you might understand where I am coming from with applying that same process to the restored gospel. That was my point, not that you don’t know what faith is etc…

  9. falcon says:

    We defend the faith by going after the doctrines of religious sects that claim they are Christians. The point is to draw clear lines of distinction between the Christian faith and those sects that are not Christian. I would say I do that spot on. Tell me where I’m wrong Mormon friends. Wasn’t Joesph Smith involved in nacromancy, divination, scrying and other practices of the magic arts forbidden by the Bible? Didn’t Joseph Smith claim a new scripture which he “translated” using a seer stone which he placed in a hat and then shoved his face in the hat? Did not Joseph Smith claim a new revelation and teach that God used to be a man and that men can become gods? Did not Joseph Smith take 33 women as wives and teach that in order to reach the pinacle of godhood men had to practice this principle? Doesn’t the Mormon church claim that temple rituals, polygamy etc. was practiced in the primitive Christian church but was left out of the Bible by a vast conspiracy? OK, that’s how we defend the faith when a sect claims to be Christian. If Mormonism wants to call itself something else other than Christianity, you have no argument from me. But don’t call Mormonism Christianity and then say we shouldn’t bring up these things.

  10. Ralph says:


    You said So the question posed here is “Who gets to interpret Mormon doctrine?” The correct answer is “Anybody who wants to.”

    In this statement you are wrong. Haven’t you been reading the posts by the LDS and fully listened to the video? The prophets are the ONLY ones that can interpret and give doctrine, everybody else is giving their own opinion and need to state as such. The answer is that easy. I can’t find the quote right now but in one of Pres. Hinckley’s interviews wiht Larry King, he said that the scholars are entitled to have their own opinion as long as they keep it at that. If they try to sell it as doctrine then disciplinary action will ensue.

    You also said “Well so we visit again the wonderful world of the Mormon doctrinal shuffle. It’s a dance step favored by Mormons who are stuck trying to defend a religion that has rightly been characterized as a Maze. Trying to find consistancy in Mormon teaching and doctrine is a challenge that many of us Christians here have taken up and have learned that Mormonism is like a “where’s Waldo” puzzle.”

    I think this is funny after a book I have read called ‘The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Christianity’. The writers seemed to be fine in finding the LDS doctrine and teachings (ie they had no problems) where as this is what they had to say about the Evangelical faith –

    “Evangelicalism tops the list of terms in Christianity that cannot be defined with precision. It would be easier is all the people who used the word “evangelical” to describe themselves had the same exact thing in mind, but they don’t. Sme think of a set of theological positions, others think of a specific way of practicing Christianity in the home, church,and community. Still others speak of evangelicalism as a tradition going back to the time of Christ. So who is right? Well, to some degree they’re all right, since nobody owns the word “evangelical,” and there’s no authorized organization entrusted to preserve and protect its meaning.”

    “What makes evangelical Christians different from other Christians? Ask 10 self-described evangelicals and you’ll get 10 different answers. They’re not trying to be evasive or cause you grief; they just lack an agreed-upon definition. And to add to the confusion, they might beling to a variety of different denominations…Or they might attend a nondenominational evangelical church…”

    So it seems that others, outside of both faiths disagree with you on that point.

    As far as where you misrepresent our doctrine, we have said many things in the past, but either you are not reading them or you ignore them. One is the Adam-God position; another is Jesus’ conception; DNA evidence; and the list can go on.

  11. mobaby says:


    A direct line can be drawn from the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to the polygamous Mormon believers today – whether they be in communes or just living in normal society in Utah. That is just some of the bad fruit of Mormonism.

  12. falcon says:

    Mormons don’t have doctrine, they have revelation. That’s the problem with Mormonism. It’s a grab bag of whatever is the current stream of consciousness of the new and improved prophet. If a sect has a different god, a different Jesus, a different spirit and a different plan of salvation, I would think any objective person would have difficulty calling the group “Christian”.
    I know our Mormon friends are reaching when they have to quote “The Compete Idiots Guide to Chrisitanity”. That’s got to be a reliable authoratative source that we’ll readily accept. It figures a Mormon would quote it!
    All I know is that in Mormonism, the prophet is suppose to be speaking for the Mormon god. I quote what Mormon prophets and GAs past and present have said. As usual, our Mormon friends want it both ways. They want to claim that their prophets hear from god and then deny what the prophet says as being authoritative. Brigham Young taught adam-god. Mormons are stuck with it. I don’t misrepresent anything. I state it. Mormons have made an art form out of obfuscation, covering-up, sanitizing, and just flat out lying (Gordon Hinckley god progression) and just plain changing things that reflect bad on the sect. Why do we have so many changes in the BoM, the most perfect book ever written. Why have the temple ceremonies been changed, polygamy dropped and discriminated against african-americans suddenly acceptable? The Mormon god didn’t suddenly wake-up one day and decide to change these things. It’s all part of the Utah LDS attempts to mainstream themselves that started around 1900.
    How can I get it wrong when Mormons can’t even get it right? No, I get it right about Mormonism. It’s Mormons who have trouble figuring out what they believe week to week, month to month, year to year and most certainly era to era! I would suggest that our Utah Mormon friends go and check out the Community of Christ sect of Mormonism. There’s a refreshing honesty about these folks when it comes to Mormon history, practice and doctrine thats refreshing. Something Utah LDS find a challenge. But what’s the difference, huh? As long as you “feel” it, that’s all that counts.

  13. falcon says:

    The subject of this thread being “who speaks for Mormons” I thought an article by Steve Benson, grandson of former grand poobah, Ezra Taft Benson, was pretty good. I’ll give the highlights:

    Mormons apparently are oblivious to how stupid their church comes across to the Mainstream Other when they solemnly testify on national TV to some of their more bizarre beliefs.

    For instance, on 19 October 2007, on Cnn’s program “Anderson Cooper 360,” CNN national corespondent Gary Tuchman interviewed Russell Ballard, billed on the program as an “apostle” and “top Mormon leader.”

    Below is what Ballard blaffingly blubbered for all the country to scratch its collective head over:

    TUCHMAN (voice-over): “Mormons believe in the Old and New Testaments but also in the Book of Mormon. Think of it as kind of a sequel to the Bible.”

    BALLARD: “We believe that the Garden of Eden was on this continent.”

    TUCHMAN (on camera): “So that the Garden of Eden wasn’t in the Holy Land?”

    BALLARD: “No, not in our doctrine.”

    TUCHMAN (voice-over): “For Mormons, Eden was in Missouri, and Jesus Christ visited the Americas after the resurrection.”

    BALLARD:”We know that He came and taught the people and restored the Gospel to them.”

    TUCHMAN (on camera): “Has Jesus returned here to the United States, in your beliefs?”

    BALLARD: “Oh, yes.”

    Benson continues:
    No wonder most folks think that Mormons are just plain whacked. Next thing you know, they’ll be insisting they can create their own worlds, their own Adams, their own Eves and their own saviors-meaning themselves, the Latter-day gods……..Nah.

    You gotta love these exMos. They’ve got the “Been there, done that, got the tee shirt” mentality. So who speaks for Mormons? We may want to rephrase that to “who speaks for Mormons, well?” I guess only those who know how to duck and cover and shuffle to the left and shuffle to the right……but don’t present Mormonism the way it really is. Make it sound as much like Evangelical Christianity as possible. Obviously this Ballard dude is not on the first team. He needs to take a clue from Gordon Hinckley who knew how to say “I don’t know that we’ve ever taught that.” Back to the LDS training center for Ballard.

  14. faithoffathers says:

    I just watched the video from Bill McKeever. I find it sort of funny that so many critics try to push the idea that there is a battle going on in the church- confusion, tension, conflict- on the verge of breaking up. This is the impression critics try to create and reinforce. They have been doing this for as long as I have been researching the church- a long time.

    In our church, the first presidency has the authority to pronounce doctrine. Period. Nothing that anybody else says is binding- as far as doctrine.

    p.s. falcon- you have never answered me as to how Christ wasn’t involved in your definition of necromancy (see Mount of Transfiguation). Joseph’s claims were no different than that event- ancient prophets appearing.


  15. Ralph says:

    Hey Falcon,

    There is another misrepresentation that you keep making about our church – the claim you made that the BoM is the most ‘perfect’ book. The actual quote is that the BoM is the MOST CORRECT book. BIG difference. Don’t worry, you are not the only one who makes that ‘mistake’ (for want of a better word) on this forum – you’re in with others.

    As far as Adam-God goes, how many times do we have to say it. It has never been doctrine; it was not in any of the teaching texts nor was/is it in our standard works (ie Bible, BoM, PoG and D&C). I know, the JoD was co-printed/included with the original D&C but that does not mean that it was/is part of our scriptures and taken as doctrine. The Topical Guide and Bible Dictionary are co-printed as part of our Bible/Quads but they are not considered doctrine, just helpful aids for teaching and understanding the scriptures. From what some have said on this forum, there were some big discussions as to whether to include it as doctrine or not, Parley P Pratt and BY being the 2 ‘opposing’ sides, and the decision was not to make it doctrine. And BY only has a FEW written and oral texts about this topic with tens to hundreds times more of his explaining that Adam and God were 2 separate beings. So it was not like he was ramming it down the congregations’ throats. I think that there is more meaning to it and it is misinterpreted by both LDS members and non-LDS members alike – but that’s my thoughts NOT DOCTRINE.

    As for the book I quoted, what can I say? I am an idiot, so I need all the help I can get. I am trying to understand and find out about your beliefs, so I am reading around a few books from the library and that was one of them.

  16. falcon says:

    Tell you what Mormon friends, I have my buddy Berean on the case and he’s going to do a presentation regarding Adam-God. Here we go again I’m afraid. Mormons really have a problem deciding what’s Mormon doctrine. From Bill’s presentation we see that the BYU types can’t even get Mormon doctrine lined-up with the GAs. That’s why it’s so curious that Mormons like to quote the BYU profs.
    BoM, the most correct book? Well if the Mormons keep changing it maybe someday they’ll get all of the corrections in place. It’s going to take a whole rewriting however since the evidence is that this most correct book is a total bogus ripoff. I would suggest that the boys who sit in the big chairs at LDS headquarters in SLC, get Joe’s magic rock out of the safe and try the hat trick. Their current methods of revelation don’t appear too hot!

  17. faithoffathers says:


    Ever read the Book of Mormon cover to cover?

    And what about the question about necromancy? Would you consider Moses and Elias appearing to Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration an instance of necromancy?


  18. Amanda says:


    “From Bill’s presentation we see that the BYU types can’t even get Mormon doctrine lined-up with the GAs. That’s why it’s so curious that Mormons like to quote the BYU profs”

    BYU professors are no different than any other person trying to understand God on their own terms using scripture, teachings of prophets and scholarly study. This is no different than mainstream Christian efforts in understanding God. NEITHER of these individuals employing this approach EVER trumps the wisdom and direction of a Prophet: PERIOD.

    Why do you think the Elders clarify this? To the extent that someone quotes a scholar–this is only problematic when they seem to contradict and one sides with the scholar rather than a prophet. It is no different than you quoting any other biblical scholar–it makes for interesting conversation and secular knowledge–but does not trump the authority of God! Why is this so difficult to understand? Disagree that there are modern prophets-you are entitled to that much–but to see an issue between the authority of a prophet, and the opinions of a scholar–is simply illogical and unfounded. If anything, the fact that this happens further illustrates the need for ONE organization with ONE voice regarding the doctrines of Christ.


    That is the bad fruit of APOSTASY..because if you were honest with yourself about the facts–you would know those who practice polygamy today are not LDS, and their ancestors were breakaways from the restored gospel..they rejected the leadership of a prophet, Wilford Woodruff, who ended the practice of Polygamy in 1890.

    Many really misunderstand the teachings of past prophets on the subject because they neglect to consider the symbolism that these prophets are referring to that exists in the bible! Namely the teaching found in the Wilford Woodruff Journal, July 22, 1883– that stated that Christ was the Bridegroom and Mary and Martha were the brides. The Bridegroom is symbolic of those who enter into a covenant with the Lord before knowing Him–having faith that He will give them all that He has–Mary and Martha were brides in a symbolic sense because they were followers of Jesus–EVERYONE who follows Jesus is a symbolically considered a “bride”.

    here are my biblical references:

    Revelation 19: 7-9
    Revelation 18: 23
    Matthew 22: 1-10
    Luke 14: 12-24
    I’ll be happy to provide more if necessary.

  19. falcon says:

    Here’s the problem with the “Have You Read The Entire BoM from cover to cover?” question. I’ll answer it with a couple of other questions. (1) Have you ever read the entire Koran cover to cover? (2) Have you ever read the Satanic Bible cover to cover? If not, why not? Let’s add “Have you ever read the Apostles’ Creed humbly and sincerely?” And when you read it, did you get a burning in your bossom? You didn’t? Than you didn’t read it humbly and sincerely. The same could be said of the Koran or the Satanic Bible for that matter.

    The question here is “Who speaks for the Mormon church?” Bill’s point, I believe, is that the BYU profs like to wax eloquent about Mormon doctrine and Mormons love to quote them, but to what end? It’s idle speculation, especially when it comes to matters of Mormon doctrine. I believe there was a BYU prof by the name of Michael Quinn that’s been savaged by the powers that be. So why do Mormons quote the favored BYU profs if their opinions are meaningless? If Mormons want to talk about the bottom line doctrine of the Mormon church, then they need to stick with the GAs. Quoting Nibley or Robertson or whoever is just a way of putting window dressing on some LDS doctrines and teachings to make it look like Mormonism is no different than mainstream Christianity…..which BTW…..Mormons really don’t want anything to do with anyway.

  20. falcon says:

    I was challenged previously regarding Adam-God and also the utterances of the prophet Brigham Young regarding the Father having sexual relations with Mary to conceive Jesus rather than the Christian view that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost.

    In the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pp. 50-51 BY says:

    When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost….Remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost…..In fact….if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children to be palmed upon by the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties.

    In Journal of Discourses Vol. 8 p.115 we read BY again;

    The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action…..[Jesus],,,,was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers. BY also said that the Father did it Himself, “instead of letting any other man do it’. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pl 218.

    Orson Pratt said, The Father and Mother of Jesus, accourding to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife: hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father; we use the term lawful Wife because it would have been blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully. (Pratt, p. 158)

    Herber C. Kimball: I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father and also my Saviour, Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh and there was nothing unnatural about it. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 211)

    And finally Joseph Fielding Smith said; Christ was…..not born without the aid of man and that man was god. Doctrines of Salvation, Bookcraft Publishers, Salt Lake City, Vol. 1 p. 18.

    Of course none of this counts because these guys said these things a long time ago or………pick any number of Mormon excuses for these dumb dead white guys.

  21. faithoffathers says:


    Nice dodge my friend. The difference is that nobody here is claiming to know much about the Koran like you claim to know about the BOM. You are completely dodging the personal responsibility of dealing with the Book. It is easier to depend on arguments developed by others to dismiss Joseph Smith than actually read the book.

    You cannot dismiss it by judging from its fruits- they are too many and too good. Your claims simply come off as utterly empty when you have not even read the book you spend so much time criticizing and condemning.

    Your comments on the conception of Christ do not take into consideration possibilities which modern science has shed light upon. We now know it is possible for a woman to become pregnant without having physical relations with a man. I have always believed it was this way that Christ was conceived. Orsan Pratt is the only one I have ever heard mention the marriage possibility- and it truly seems he was speculating judging from his language… “must have…” We know now via science what they could not have in the 1850s.

    The argument you and others have made about this has never gotten much of a rise from me for this reason- there is really a simple explanation that makes sense. Ultimately, we don’t know because it has never been revealed.

    keep the faith my friend!

    p.s. why add “white” to dumb dead guys in describing our past prophets?


  22. Ralph says:

    Oh come now Falcon,

    For God so loved the world that He gave His only BEGOTTEN son – John 3:16.

    If you want to read into those quotes above that ‘begotten’ means through physical contact then what about this verse in the Bible?

    Ask any biologist, sexual reproduction means the swapping of genes, nothing else. There 2 main ways that it can happen IN NATURE as well as by human means – they are external fertilisation and internal fertilisation. We know that for God nothing is impossible and that He created all life on this earth. So somewhere He would have the knowledge to cause Mary to become pregnant without any physical contact and it would be by natural means.

    No where did any of them say that Jesus’ conception was via sexual intercourse. But we do believe that Jesus inherited genes from Heavenly Father, which gave Him His immortality and deity, and genes from His mother, Mary, which gave Him His mortality and humanity.

  23. falcon says:

    Wonderful spin Mormon friends. The bottom line here is that Mormonism is a unique religion unto itself without the benefit of a consistent systematic theology and based on the creative musings of some guys who got carried away with their own imaginations. I take them at their words as I’m sure those living at that time did. No amount of the Mormon shuffle is going to erase what these guys said and meant.

    What our Mormon friends also content is that the BoM has to be read to determine if it’s true. Why’s that? It can’t be determined if it’s true by reading the scholarly analysis done by others? Our Mormon friends have read the BoM and contend that’s it’s true even though it’s been proven in countless ways that it isn’t. So what good did reading it do these folks if they came to a wrong conclusion? Oh I know, they got a feeling that they said came from God that proved that it’s true despite all the evidence to the contrary. So Ok, if someone goes and gets a copy and reads it and then says the BoM is false, will our Mormon friends than accept that it’s false. Why not? The person read it and said it’s false. That’s the test, right? No, I’m afraid not because then our Mormon friends will say the person didn’t read it humbly and sincerely. I know the game Mormon friends. I choose not to play.

    And why did I say dead white guys? Because they are dead, they were white and they were guys. And besides it’s fun to tweak your little noses!

  24. Gundeck says:


    Do Mormons beleive that the miracle that occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration was necromancy? If not why do Mormons use this argument?

  25. faithoffathers says:


    One criticism levelled very frequently here by you and others is that LDS refuse to face supposed “evidence.” It just seems a little hypocritical to not have ever read the BOM, yet claim any level of knowledge of the book, let alone evidence regarding its truthfulness. Plenty of other people make the same claim about the bible- they can say “others have shown very convincingly that the bible is false- so why even read it.”

    Isn’t your argument for the Bible that you have read it and found it to be true? How is the BOM any different?

    If you are comfortable relying on others to make decisions for you, that is your perogative. I just think this makes any argument you make against it completely irrelevant.


  26. falcon says:

    Hay FOF,
    I’m set. I’m ready to read the BoM. Can you get me one? What I’d like to do is set it up so that I’m giving daily progress reports to our MC friends as to how I’m doing. You know, what I’ve read, what my impression of what I read, include some outside sources so that I can provide commentary, really get into this thing. Take it on as a project. I’ll talk with the moderators and see if they’ll give me my own thread on here. Now the problem of course is that the only acceptable outcome for a Mormon is that the reader say the BoM is true. Because if the reader concludes that the BoM is false then of course we up the ante. You didn’t read it sincerely and humbly. And so you go back and read it again and you conclude again it’s false. Well then there must be sin in your life. The answer can never be “false”. The answer (in the Mormon orb) is that it has to be true.
    Do you remember when you and Berean where debating and he told you that he’d read the BoM more times than the Bible and that he concluded that the BoM was false. Did you accept that? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Because the only correct answer is “true”. But I’m ready to rock and roll on this deal. I’ll highlight, make notes in the margin, ask questions, do the research on the science and so forth. No holding back. You going to send me one? I’ll even talk with the boy missionaries. There’s lots of things I’d like to ask them.

  27. Ralph says:


    Good to see you’re taking up a challenge. If you are wanting help with the scientific side of things why not go to the Skeptics annotated Bible, BoM and Quran on the internet. While you are researching the scientific anomalies of the BoM you can also see the scientific anomalies in the Bible. This will give you a fairer system of seeing the scientific value of rating the BoM (which is a book of faith just like the Bible).

    But I have a better idea – you already know what is wrong with the BoM, why not try and see what is right with it? That does not mean that you have to find the BoM to be true, just see if there are any teachings in there that you can and do agree with. Are there any?

  28. falcon says:

    Our Mormon friend always goes back to the “equivalency” argument in order to be able to do the Mormon logic mantra “……….therefore the Mormon church is true.” Funny stuff! And very transparent. Yea, I think anything Joseph Smith plagerized from the Bible is true since he ripped it off from the inspired scriptures. He wedged it in between the other stuff he lifted from the works of other authors of the time. The dude was a con man of the first order and as long as there are people who are willing to buy into the fuzzy wuzzie tingle approach to determining truth, Mormonism will have it’s followers. You see, to the Mormon, the answer regarding the BoM can never be it’s false. It’s all apart of the false logic and willingness to accept feelings rather than evidence as a test for truth. That’s why we get all of these stupid off the wall pronouncements from Mormon prophets that the faithful ignore because they got the feeling. It’s just like people buying a product emotionally and then trying to justify it rationally. The bottom line? Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God, the BoM is not true, the Mormon church is not the restored church, and the Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible……….and believe me, the end result after death is not receiving a signature planet as a god being loved and adored and worship by your own minions.

  29. mrgermit says:

    FoF: nice post above, and point well taken…I’m doing my “24” today…no, not Jack Bauer…..that was last night (for some)……but 24 min. in the BofM. 531 pages of……well, it depends on who you ask……

    blessings on all who love and seek after the GIVER of truth

  30. faithoffathers says:


    LDS do not believe what at the Mount of Transfiguration was necromancy. Moses and Elias (or Elijah), both of whom had lived on the earth previously as prophets, appeared to Christ.

    My point to falcon is that if he claims Joseph Smith was involved with necromancy because he claimed ancient prophets appeared to him, then he must also accuse Christ of the same practice. Follow?


  31. WORD FROM THE TOP (Bill McKeever):

    SteveH is no longer welcome to comment at Mormon Coffee.

Leave a Reply