A few months ago, folks here at Mormon Coffee were discussing LDS temple weddings and the difficulties that can arise when the bride and/or groom come from part-member families. Non-Mormons, as well as Mormons who do not possess temple recommends, are not allowed to enter LDS temples; therefore, they are not allowed to attend the temple weddings of their loved ones.
A Mormon participating in the discussion chided the others:
“Many people here used the word ‘unworthy’ to describe everybody who cannot enter the temple. The implication is that we think we are better than everybody else. And that really isn’t accurate at all. Are the LDS who are not old enough to go to the temple ‘unworthy?’ No.
“And yes- I venture to say that there are a lot of people who live their lives in a manner that they would qualify, if members of the church, to go to the temple.
“For these reasons, I make the point that it is not accurate to us[e] the word ‘worthy’ or ‘unworthy’ to describe everybody who cannot enter the temple.”
I understand that some are not allowed to enter Mormon temples because of being younger than the minimum age requirement. Yet the mild rebuke advanced by this Mormon commenter is really undeserved.
The What We Believe section of the August 2010 issue of the official LDS Ensign Magazine is titled, “Being Worthy to Enter the Temple.” This article is only four paragraphs long, yet uses the words “worthy” or “worthiness” seven times (not including the title):
- “We must, however, be worthy to enter.”
- “A temple recommend signifies that we have been found worthy through an interview with a member of our bishopric…”
- “Temple recommend interviews are opportunities for us to examine our worthiness.”
- “If our priesthood leaders find that we are worthy to enter the temple,…”
- “We sign our recommend to confirm our worthiness to enter the temple.”
- “Our priesthood leaders also sign our recommend as additional witnesses of our worthiness.”
- “This recommend allows us to enter the temple for the next two years, provided we remain worthy.” (Ensign, 8/2010, p.8)
Whether Mormons “think they are better than everybody else” or not, I cannot say. But I do believe that applying the words “worthy” or “unworthy” in the context of describing someone’s general eligibility regarding entrance to LDS temples is indeed accurate.
It is a common thing here at Mormon Coffee for Mormons to accuse non-Mormons of purposely misrepresenting Mormonism, of not understanding the LDS religion, or of ignoring contemporary official statements. In this case, I fail to see where we have gone wrong. We have merely used the same terms used by LDS leadership in official publications and temple recommend interviews, and those commonly used in Mormon circles.
The reason I bring this up is not in an effort to defend the Christian community here. The reason I bring this up is to demonstrate, with one real-life example, that things are not always as they seem. Here, critics of Mormonism were accused of misrepresenting Mormon doctrine while accurately employing the very words and ideas utilized by the LDS Church itself.
The next time you come across an accusation like this, readers, I challenge you to remember this example and recognize that the accusation may be unwarranted. If Mormons raise objections–and cast aspersions–over simple and verifiable issues like this, it begs the question–what sort of basis is there for the other objections and accusations Mormons frequently bandy about online? Think about it and check it out because, when Mormons tell you that you are reading lies, the information you’re reading just might turn out to be the honest truth.
Rick, you said:
" Its one thing to say, yes they were taught as doctrine, it's another thing to simply blow it off and say, well God changes and He changed the way He is doing things."
They can´t say the doctrines taught by past prophets are wrong because that would be the same as stating they were false prophets, which would annul their authority and put to question the authority of every one of their actions and that of their successors.
That would be the equivalent of destroying the priesthood and any claims of an unique authority, that makes them head of the church – that would cause all kinds of uprising and splitting of the church.
That´s why is critical for them to deny that stuff, so they can keep the control centralized.
"F_melo, I see no problems with women not being allowed to be pastors or having lower positions."
I don´t either – but i´ve been so bombarded with biased accusations of women being considered inferior to man according to Christianity, that it is important to understand it under the perspective of the scriptures.
I also mentioned that because mormonism will attempt to portray that women aren´t inferior to men, just have different roles in god´s plan – and to do that they will use some of the same ground a Christian will use to explain the men-women relationship before God. That´s when things might get blurry, and it is important to make things clear.
Great response you gave – you sure put things in the right perspective.
"The one thing they are not allowed to do is that, but everyone seems to cry about that the most."
I think that´s intentional – to create contention in the Body of Christ, to divide and conquer.
"The Godmakers (book and movie) is famous for doing so in many ways."
The only thing i found in the Godmakers movie that is wrong is at the end of the cartoon when it says that Joseph did more for mankind than Jesus. I haven´t read the book, so i can´t comment on it.
"I've heard some say in this case the ends justify the means" – that philosophy is common ground for dishonest people, wherever they may come from.
"Yet, I have been accused of lying nearly (if not)10 times already – even when it was found that one individual opposing my viewpoint was the one not being completely honest in how they represented the source of their plagiarized arguments that were clearly stated as being their own work. "
I accused you of lying about a point of the mormon doctrine you misrepresented, and i pointed out the evidences for it. I wasn´t dishonest at all – i can copy and paste it all from the last article. All the "10"(if those were me) times were on the same subject. I didn´t accuse you of lying in ten different subjects.
You´re also laying that accusation as if people on this blog were responsible for irresponsible publications that don´t care about truth. I don´t stand by dishonesty no matter where it comes from.
"Would it be too much to ask in not having a double standard here? "
That issue is between you and Rick, you can´t generalize it – you don´t see the blog moderators correcting people´s statements here or pointing out wrong or false arguments. Everyone can see it for themselves, and are free to point them out if they want to. I´ve pointed out you were lying on one specific topic of a conversation between you and me, which i substantiated with your own literature and solid argumentation. I also pointed out cases where i detected doublespeak which i also substantiated – you´re making it seem i was just slandering you, but that´s no true at all.
"Otherwise, it just becomes two gross caricatures fighting against each other, and nobody on any side is spiritually edified – it just leads to a bunch of people high-fiving and "Amen!"-ing each other over cheap potshots. "?
Can´t see that – usually the Amen-ing each other was done when one strongly agrees with a point made – what do you expect? Again, you´re making it seem like we´re a bunch of trolls, and that just does not correspond to reality.
" it's just as silly to assume that all (or most) Mormons are lying, deceiving, wicked biblically illiterates who don't know their own beliefs, or are ashamed of them, and have a persecution complex."
The mormon people were the ones who built that reputation – don´t blame us for pointing it out… and that´s demonstrated very often in this blog, sadly.
"While there are definitely those who fall into both categories, lets not assume it's the rule, and not start off by treating each other like you assume we are?"
It would be easy to assume if we were face to face, but in this case, all we have to judge are the words of the person – so, the reaction is a response to the point of view expressed. You also seem to forget that people here usually have either been members of the church or have studied mormonism and dealt with mormons for a long time. Their arguments don´t come from blind ignorance, because they must do their own thinking to understand the mormon perspective before they comment on it.
I would like to finish my response with a well used mormon come-back(just watch the callers on the "heart of the matter" show): "why do you waste your time bringing down other people´s religion?" "you should practice your religion instead of denigrating the religion of others", etc., etc., etc.
Don´t get me wrong – i like the dialogue – i just said that last part for fun.
–"I accused you of lying about a point of the mormon doctrine you misrepresented, and i pointed out the evidences for it. I wasn´t dishonest at all – i can copy and paste it all from the last article. All the "10"(if those were me) times were on the same subject. I didn´t accuse you of lying in ten different subjects. –"
Don't worry, it wasn't just you 😉 And I have responded to each claim that I represented something incorrectly, often times correcting a mistaken idea that you had. I don't for a second believe you were being dishonest. I believe you have been completely honest and good-natured throughout our discussions, although I do believe you have misunderstood some things 🙂
-"Can´t see that – usually the Amen-ing each other was done when one strongly agrees with a point made – what do you expect? Again, you´re making it seem like we´re a bunch of trolls, and that just does not correspond to reality. –"
Note that I applied that to both Mormons and non-Mormon who participate here. And I think you can probably acknowledge that there are certainly individuals who post here who exibit troll-like behavior from time to time – on both the Mormon and non-Mormon side. I hoped to state clearly in my post that neither side of participants is completely innocent here, although there are certainly individuals who are.
-"The mormon people were the ones who built that reputation – don´t blame us for pointing it out… and that´s demonstrated very often in this blog, sadly. -"
What, that we're ALL lying, deceiving, wicked biblically illiterates who don't know their own beliefs, or are ashamed of them, and have a persecution complex? Really?
While certainly some of the dregs of Mormonism certainly do show up here from time to time, I'd say the same goes for professed Christians here as well.
However, I tend to go by one of Krister Stendahl's rules of interreligious debate and discussion: Don't compare your best to their worst.
–"That issue is between you and Rick, you can´t generalize it – you don´t see the blog moderators correcting people´s statements here or pointing out wrong or false arguments. Everyone can see it for themselves, and are free to point them out if they want to. "–
And I find it unfortunate when individuals feel very comfortable calling those who express their beliefs as liars, but won't back up their intellectual opponents when someone professing to be on their own side uses less than honorable tactics. that's what I mean by a double-standard.
Remember: people won't think you're a Mormonism-lover for calling out or disassociating from an opponent to Mormonism that is dishonest.
Believe me – if I saw a Mormon on here being demonstrably dishonest, I would be the first to call him out on it (if I got here before someone else, that is ;), and disassociate myself from his tactics.
dltayman,
If it will make you happy, then next time I use something someone else said, I will cite each saying. I still stand by the fact that since I clearly said exactly who wrote the info and where I got it from I did nothing wrong. I notice you try saying I am still in the wrong because my reply was so long it needed to be posted in 3 parts, and since I did not put in each single part that I posted, some things are from MRM, You assume I lied.
Like I said, I was not about to go back and break everything down and say,
Bill said this…
Rick said this…
And Bill said this…..
And Rick said this…
Etc, Etc.
I have seen both LDS and Christians, Cut and paste things, then say my source is….
And it has never been an issue since things were Cited. Now all of a sudden, I cite my source's and it's still a problem. I honestly think your just looking for a reason to complain.
–" I still stand by the fact that since I clearly said exactly who wrote the info and where I got it from I did nothing wrong.–"
You may have thought you did, but you didn't. Go back and look. Seriously, go back and look.
The only place, ANYWHERE , you stated that you used a source was at the very end, when you said: "The section I posted about questions to think about, was taken From the Mormonism researech minstry website." – what I called you out on were many, many verbatim paragraphs in the posts above the questions, from the different sections in your long treatise, that were clearly taken from elsewhere – such as the link I provided. You didn't cite those.
–"I notice you try saying I am still in the wrong because my reply was so long it needed to be posted in 3 parts–"
Nowhere did I say anything about the length. Come on now.
–"Like I said, I was not about to go back and break everything down and say,
Bill said this…
Rick said this…
And Bill said this…..
And Rick said this…
Etc, Etc. –"
You didn't need to. You just didn't need to accuse me of being wrongly judgmental when you actually did exactly what I implied you did do. You could have said, "You're right. Sorry about that. I still hold that the questions are important, even if I didn't write them", instead of persisting that "If it was not cited then it was my work." – when I have shown that this is not the case.
dltayman,
I am going to use this whole incident of you getting on me over me citing my source to make a bigger point here and I am looking forward to your reply.
F_melo said to you.
Then you replied with
Then you said
Now does the last saying apply only to Mormons posting on this blog? or does this apply to your church as well?
LDS are very dishonest, The LDS leaders and prophets have claimed BY never taught Adam God as Doctrine, Thats a flat out lie. Does this sound like BY saying it is Doctrine to you?
Now I know you will say, well thats his opinion or make some attempt to down play it, so I will add this.
Now I could give examples of Blood atonement, Blacks being told they will never be allowed to hold the priesthood, By Eternal law of God, and many other things. Your church taught these things as fact and doctrine, You guys now deny them and tell people they were never taught. Not they were taught and then denounced. When will you do as you said, and contact your church and call them out? The issue you have with me, is trivial compared to the problems with your church lying and covering it up or denying it.
"What, that we're ALL lying, deceiving, wicked biblically illiterates who don't know their own beliefs, or are ashamed of them, and have a persecution complex? Really? "
Unfortunately, i have to say yes to ALMOST all mormons i´ve known – The lying and deceiving is not intentional though – but they are taught to parrot what their leaders teach them, and to accept those teachings blindly. While you might be an exception, most of the mormons i´ve dealt with obeyed just as they were told. Stuff like "polygamy was just a practice" and all – that´s deceitful because polygamy is a standing doctrine that has been suspended for the time being, but it is still believed – but the majority of mormons won´t ever realize that, as i didn´t realize it myself before i started questioning the authority of the church.
as for the scriptures – i was a mormon for over 17 years. I stopped trusting the church when i found out about all the history i was never taught there – and most members of the church don´t know that JS used a seer stone in a hat, they don´t know the Book of Mormon as been modified over time, etc., etc., etc. I´m actually surprised to have most of them even defend that mormonism is a monotheistic religion.
As the scriptures are concerned – as it was previously discussed here, the institute and seminary lessons only examine a few scriptures here and there that can be used to emphasize a doctrine of the church. Those are ripped off context, and twisted to fit whatever doctrine the church seems appropriate.
One clear, clear example is when Paul himself gives an interpretation of scripture:
Gal 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
Contrast that to Abraham 2:11 – "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee(…)"
They clearly contradict each other on the interpretation of the promises of God to Abraham as recorded in Genesis – and i´ll go with Paul in Galatians.(but that´s not the point, just an example).
"And I find it unfortunate when individuals feel very comfortable calling those who express their beliefs as liars, but won't back up their intellectual opponents when someone professing to be on their own side uses less than honorable tactics. that's what I mean by a double-standard."
I really didn´t bother to check because the whole argument had nothing to do with any theology, you were just discussing if he authored the post or not. Sorry, but that´s silly.
If anyone would say something like "Mormons believe Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary having sex!" then i would definitely explain it. I´m relatively new to this blog and i´ve never seen that happening though.
I´ve also stated in a few posts that i´m open to correction, if there´s something wrong with what i say, anyone can correct me, and if the correction stands on solid arguments i´ll acknowledge it. I even had a post removed once(i know why, no hurt feelings).
dltayman, you said
Just curious, did you mean Mary and God the father? I know Mary and Joseph had sex after the birth of Jesus, I know this for 2 reasons, a married couple will have sex at least once, I cannot imagine being married and never having sex. But then the Bible tells us, Jesus had brothers and sisters, that means Joseph must have had sex with his wife. So I think you meant God the father and Mary, just trying to clarify, since many have stated that the LDS church taught God the father and Mary had sex to conceive Jesus.
So do you admit that you were wrong, and inaccurate?
The Church, in its statements, is accurate that The Church today does not teach those things. You will not find them in our current curriculum, or in official publications of the Church.
I believe Brigham Young did teach such things. More and more it's acknowledged that he did. He was wrong.
Concerning Adam-God, He has made clear these were his (admittedly strongly held) opinions based on logically connecting pieces of revelation, and an understanding of scripture. ("I reckon," are his words he used to introduce the concepts).
There was a great paper put out recently that goes over in great detail what Brigham actually Taught, where his understanding came from, and the reaction and aftermath of it: http://bit.ly/aQSe3G
–"You guys now deny them and tell people they were never taught. Not they were taught and then denounced. –"
It appears you're not familiar with much of the recent historical work that has been published by the Church. It is clear it is acknowledged that he taught such. The position, however, is that it is not the doctrine of the Church, it is not something we believe, and it is not authoritative. Brother Brigham made some powerful and inspired contributions to the Church, and his leadership kept the Church alive, and caused it to thrive.
I believe that while he was wrong in many of his opinions and interpretations, he also did much and taught much that was extremely beneficial to the Lord's Church, and I feel he served his prophetic role well. Later leaders recognized the errors, and they were corrected in due course. His actions had far more far reaching and long-term benefit to the Church compared to the short term confusion and harm based on some of his interpretive teaching.
I don't hold to a belief in infallibility of prophets interpretations of historical events involved in the revelation they do receive – and that goes for ancient and modern prophets.
And yes, I do get frustrated with members who, aware of these texts, try to claim he must have meant something else than that which he actually said. My position is, he said it, he meant what he said, and he was wrong. Move on. The Church certainly has.
–"The lying and deceiving is not intentional though"–
So… you don't think there's a difference between an individual choosing to intentionally lie/mislead, and those who honestly present information they believe, but unknown to them is inaccurate?
–=" most members of the church don´t know that JS used a seer stone in a hat,"–
Is publishing it in the official Church magazine by an Apostle considered hiding this information? See http://bit.ly/9WMmjW
-=" they don´t know the Book of Mormon as been modified over time, etc., etc., etc."–
See: http://new.lds.org/study/topics/book-of-mormon-ch…
–"They clearly contradict each other on the interpretation of the promises of God to Abraham as recorded in Genesis – and i´ll go with Paul in Galatians.–"
*shrug* I believe both are valid interpretations. New Testament writers regularly took Old Testament scriptures out of their original historical context, or used a pun based on the greek text, to use the language to teach a true principle they were trying to emphasize.
"I don't hold to a belief in infallibility of prophets interpretations of historical events involved in the revelation they do receive – and that goes for ancient and modern prophets."
I don´t believe God gives them revelation and then leave the prophets to interpret them with their own wisdom. I don´t believe Bible prophets made mistakes about interpretation of revelation at all.
"And yes, I do get frustrated with members who, aware of these texts, try to claim he must have meant something else than that which he actually said. My position is, he said it, he meant what he said, and he was wrong. Move on. The Church certainly has."
It´s not that simple at all. Many people were taught to believe in a false god(Adam), and lived their lives serving that false god. That´s idolatry and God wouldn´t have allowed it. Brigham Young was very aware of the position he had and of the importance and weight his words had in the mind of the members and leaders. He wouldn´t have been that irresponsible unless he really believed what he was saying. If he did, then he was a false prophet.
dltayman,
You are correct that the church does not teach a lot of things that it did years ago, Here is the problem with what your saying though.
BY and other prophets taught much stuff saying it was sermons and it was from God Himself, so if it was taught as Doctrine and from God Himself, you cannot blow it off as nothing. If they were wrong on these things how do you know they are not wrong on other things? You said BY admitted these were strongly held opinions, show me where BY said they were His opinions. I can show you and did already, they were doctrines from God and laws of God.
BY as I showed said these were sermons, not opinions. Also Your prophets have said this,
They use scripture to back it up. How is it that they can say this, but then also go onto say that BY and others never taught this stuff, or claim he taught it but was wrong. Why is it you admit he was wrong on these subjects, but on things you like, he must have been correct on them? It's easy to say, I dont agree with Adam God, so that means it is wrong/false. But I like the teaching that I will be a God, so that means it must be true.
No. The book says Mary and Joseph. If you go to the link I provided on amazon.com, you'll see there that someone else pointed out this error as well.
what Mary and Joseph did after the birth of Jesus doesn't have to do with anything. I don't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary – but I do believe that mary was a physical, literal never-had-sex-in-any-form virgin when Christ was born, notwithstanding the opinions some have shared.
It's not only what is taught in the Bible, it is also reinforced in the Book of Mormon.
dltayman,
You come across as mad in your reply, maybe it's just me. Anyway, I was just asking if you wrote it wrong, I never said it was not taught or said that way by believers.
Anyway Many in your church have taught Mary had actual sex with God the father, you might not believe that, but it was taught and believed by LDS members, and I will provide the evidence, I own the books that I will quote from, and will give name of book and page it was from. It will take a while to type it all up, but will be posted.
Since I said, "notwithstanding the opinions some have shared" I am very aware that it was "taught and believed by LDS members". That doesn't make it an official doctrine of the Church, or something I am bound to believe. I certainly don't.
While we're at it, are you going to acknowledge your error in attribution in the earlier post? Or are you still going to insist that everything was plainly and properly attributed, and nothing was misleading? All I'm looking for is an acknowledgement. I won't think less of you, or lord it over you, and I promise I'll never bring it up again once you do. So how 'bout it? 🙂
–"You said BY admitted these were strongly held opinions, show me where BY said they were His opinions. –"
Did you read the paper I linked earlier? The answer is there. Here is is again: http://bit.ly/aQSe3G
I highly suggest reading the whole thing. apart from pointing out the pieces of the puzzle Brigham was trying to connect, there's a ton of additional notes and references at the end.
But check out page 12. Where it says:
—-
In General Conference, once again, he gave an Adam–God talk but this time he said, “I propose to speak upon a subject that does not immediately concern yours or my welfare. . . . I do not pretend to say that the items of doctrine and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know, or that they should give themselves any trouble about them whatever.”
After specifying that “these are my views with regard to the gods, and eternities” and saying, “I will tell you what I think about it” he used a very significant term—thirteen times. He said, “I will tell you what I reckon.”
His exact words were: “I will tell you what I think about it, and as the [Southerners] say, ‘I reckon.’ And as the Yankees say, ‘I guess’; but I will tell you what I reckon.”
It should be pointed out here that Brigham Young was a northern Yankee from New York state—not a Southerner. He may have deliberately chosen to employ the term ‘reckon’ instead of ‘guess.’
And what did Brigham Young admit that he was guessing about in this sermon? The very
elements of the Adam–God Theory that are the most problematic. Here is what he said:
● “I reckon that Father Adam was a resurrected being, with his wives.”
● “I reckon our spirits and all the spirits of the human family were begotten by Adam,
and born of Eve.”
● “I reckon that Adam . . . himself planted [the Garden of Eden].”
The bottom line is that the core principles of the Adam–God Theory were simply Brigham Young guessing or reckoning.
dltayman,
You might not believe this but many people who have been around this blog for long periods of time will tell you, I go out of my way to be as honest as possible and have even said to LDS members before, I was wrong and I admit as much. So with that said, this is a case where I do not feel I did anything wrong and no matter how many times you ask me, My answer will remain the same. But again, I have said I was wrong when I know I am. I feel I am not in this case.
The Adam-God Doctrine as Taught by Brigham Young
You said your church doesn’t teach the Adam/God doctrine. I’m willing to concede that the church may not teach or admit to this position publicly, but based on the following quotes from Brigham Young himself, how can you believe that the LDS church doesn’t hold to that teaching.
Brigham Young is the man next to Joseph Smith that every Mormon looks to. I mean, they named a college after him. He’s quoted every day by Mormons. Books for Mormon teaching are filled with his advice and instruction. Will you take any of that advice from a guy who holds to this Adam/ God doctrine? He sure held to it.
He called it, “one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven.” Brigham Young taught it publicly as fact. If you don’t believe me, read your own copies of these publications. Stop ignoring facts. Look them up for yourself. Read the entire context.
These are some quotes from “Journal of Discourses,” and some other LDS sources.
How much unbelief exists in the minds of Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God…Then he said, "I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful. I received my crown and exaltation…I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle…" (Brigham Young, Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873, page 308; Deseret Evening News, June 14, 1873.)
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 our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the Ancient of Days.
(Pres. B. Young, Feb. 19, 1854; Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives; Brigham Young Addresses, 1850-1854, Vol. 2, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 179 in chronological order, Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 48 Fd. 11
Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God…It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven… (President Brigham Young, in the Tabernacle, General Conference, October 8, 1861, 10:30 a.m.; Brigham Young Addresses, 1860-1864, Vol. 4, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 134 in chronological order, Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 49 fd 8)
[In this next verse Matt- it becomes pretty clear that President Young just disregarded a verse in the Bible because he felt like it. That Adam was created by God the Father from the dust of this Earth should be clear to anyone who reads the verse, even casually. President Young simply chose not to believe it.]
You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding…I do not believe that portion of the Bible…. (Pres. Brigham Young, October 23, 1853, Journal Of Discourses 2:6).
*******
Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle." (President Brigham Young, April 20, 1856, Journal of Discourses 3:319).
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. (Brigham Young, April 9, 1852. Journal of Discourses 1:50)
These references show that Brigham Young, show clearly that President Brigham Young taught that not only was Adam God, but that he was also Michael the Archangel, and he called it doctrine and a revelation from God. This is absolutely refuted by the Bible Matt.
Another point I’d like to make to you is that though the LDS Church likes to say today that it disagrees completely with the Adam-God-Michael the Archangel doctrine as taught by President Young, but he didn’t have to submit these teachings formally to a Mormon Church membership vote because it was already in Mormon Scriptures. You should check these out:
And also with Michael or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days. (D&C 27:11, August 1830) Joseph Smith
Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet. (D&C 116, May 19, 1838)Joseph Smith
Both of those verses are reinforced in D&C 138:38 when LDS President Joseph F. Smith wrote:
Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all. (October 3,1918)
From these we learn:
1)That Mormon scripture purports that Adam/Michael is the Ancient of Days and the father referred to by Daniel the prophet in the Bible (see Daniel 7:9, 22 shown below).
2)Mormon scripture purports that Adam is the father of all, the prince of all.
3)Mormon scripture purports that Adam has the title Father – Father Adam (from the 1918 revelation)
From Daniel 7:9, 13, 14, 22 we find:
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
From these and the Doctrine and Covenants references we have:
a. From Daniel 7:9:The Mormon scriptures purport that Father Adam has a throne.
b. From Daniel 7:13-14: The Mormon scriptures purport that The "Son of Man,"–Jesus Christ , will come to and will be brought before “Father Adam” and “Father Adam” will give Jesus Christ dominion, and glory, and a Kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him. Only God the Father would have the authority to have Jesus Christ brought before him, and this means that LDS scriptures disagree sharply. The Mormon church says it rejects this doctrine, but it’s weird that Mormon scripture doesn’t. I know your friend Terry believes it.
*******President Brigham Young chose not to believe Genesis 2:7, simply because he didn’t want to. This is common among people who have little use or respect for the Bible. It didn’t serve his purposes Matt. But the Bible doesn’t serve our purposes—we serve the Bible’s purposes because they are the purposes of God the Father and our Lord Jesus the Messiah. You can’t pick and choose from the Bible–it is final in all matters of truth and doctrine. You believe it is the pure Word of God or you don’t. It’s that simple.
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matthew 24:35)
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20)
Please then, can you direct me to where you clearly cited the reference to the material not included in the questions at the end? That's all I'm looking for.
I'm certainly willing to be proved wrong, but I've read the posts over and over, and couldn't find such a thing, even though you have said it's there. Are you sure you didn't accidentally leave it off? Have you reviewed it again?
I'm sure you are an honest person, and that most likely this was a mistake. I'd just like you to point out for me where you attributed those statements not included in the end questions to Bill McKeever and/or MRM. Can you do that please?
"So… you don't think there's a difference between an individual choosing to intentionally lie/mislead, and those who honestly present information they believe, but unknown to them is inaccurate? "
I believe the top General Authorities intentionally deceive, but the members honestly present what they believe but unknowingly pass along those lies. Those are still lies, and the techniques are still deceptive regardless if they know about it or not. There´s a difference for sure, but the end result is the same.
"Is publishing it in the official Church magazine by an Apostle considered hiding this information?"
Here you are assuming i said the church hides information. I didn´t say that, but since you brought that up i want to ask you: Why even though the church publishes that information most members don´t have a clue about them?
also if it is the church´s intention to really teach truth, why can´t you find that information on sunday school and Elder´s Quorum/Relief Society manuals(where the members learn the most doctrine)?
"I believe both are valid interpretations" – Of course, you have to, otherwise you have no claim to any priesthood at all(since all originated with Adam, through Abraham, and on), and the missions of the church become utterly pointless. Since i don´t accept the Book of Abraham as an authentic book of scripture, there´s no point in going on about it.
I like the quote attributed to a BYU professor who said; "In Mormonism you can believe whatever you want, you just can't teach it." At last count there was something like 72 Mormon subgroups not attached to the Morg machine based in Salt Lake City Utah. These groups obviously believe that they are the one true restored gospel church. Actually, with all of the inconsistent messages that have come from Mormon leaders over the years and with all of the denials by current Mormons as to what they "really, really" believe, this professor may be on to something. Now when we mix in all of the Mormons who have absolutely no idea regarding the history of their religion and live in a fairy land of OZ produced, polished and promoted by the Morg……….well what we end-up with is a real mess.
I've wondered out loud here about the different subgroups that exist within just the SLC version of Mormonism. We have those who are on the "worthy" track to godhood, the pretenders who hang out in Mormonism and don't buy the program, and my favorite group, the Jack Mormons. I actually spent the evening with one out in Utah a couple of decades ago and threw the bellows of cigarette smoke he was blowing and the booze he was drinking-mentioned that his son just got back from a mission for the church.
This guy was playing the game because it was culturally necessary, but he wasn't buying the program. Or maybe he was……it was just his particular brand of Mormonism. He was happy, appeared well-adjusted, and, might I add FREE, within the little world he created for himself inside the larger world he had to live in.
I guess he had figured it out. That is, he knew Mormonism is a fraud and a sham and he just paid dues to stay in the club.
I don't see the point. Did you read the article? You're duplicating a lot of stuff its clear I already know if you would have read the paper.
Plus it adds additional context and corrects some of the inaccuracies in the article you reposted. I suggest reading the article. I won't say any more on this topic.
"also if it is the church´s intention to really teach truth, why can´t you find that information on sunday school and Elder´s Quorum/Relief Society manuals(where the members learn the most doctrine)? "
Because who cares? Really? How does dedicating class time to discussing one of several methods Joseph used, which necessitates going into the context of 1800s New England religious culture that regularly mixed and mingled and associated folk practices with gifts from God (see books such as this: http://amzn.to/bOob9i ) teach something applicable that can't be summed up by saying Joseph "translated through the gift and power of God" – which is the way Joseph always chose to answer the question?
The Lord often uses and works through a sincere seeker's individual's cultural understanding (compare Joseph of egypt's divination in a glass – and I don't think you think that invalidates the prophetic messages he recieved, whatever the method)
It's a great topic for scholarly discussion – and it is regularly studied and discussed in such contexts advertised in the church-owned newpaper (such as this paper delivered at FAIR conference here: http://bit.ly/6haHrR ) – it's not a secret. It's just not very important, or immediately practical in our every day lives.
Church classes – which are short – are focused on helping the individual apply the doctrines of the gospel in living a Christ-like life, and helping them learn how to better serve their fellow man.
So much for the one true church and the need of a prophet to bring all to the unity of faith. They´ve become just like any other "sectarians" they challenged and slandered in the past.
Why is it so hard for you to understand, I said, some things are from MRM website. I never posted all that stuff and lead people to believe it was all my work, I stated some came from MRM.
It might not have been in a specific format or the way you wanted, but I never lied and said this is all my work, or simply forgot to add, I got some info from another source. I did say it was from MRM. I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you over this. It would be one thing like I said, if I never said anything and lead you to believe something else, Which LDS do all the time with their doctrine.
I know you will say as before, these sayings about God the father having sex with Mary are mere opinion. So before I give the quotes let me say a few things.
1. They were taught, even if it was never stated this is fact or Doctrine, it was taught non the less.
2. Your leaders are aware of this stuff, I dont care if they believe it or not they knew it was taught and spoken off, so for them to say it WAS NEVER TAUGHT is a flat out lie.
3. If they are wrong or lying about this, what else are they wrong about or lying about.
4. Why would God have allowed people in the LDS church to teach this and allow people to believe it, if it was not true.
5. If they said this, then they had to have heard it from someone, where did they hear it from.
Now for the quotes.
In the book Articles of Faith on pg 466 is says,
The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First presidency and the twelve. That saying alone shows it was taught as Doctrine and comes from very offical sources if it is coming from the First presidency.
Now it goes onto say:
They say the scriptures are to numerous and specific, so they teach it and believe it, They say and went on further to say, God the father is the Literal Parent. You cannot be literal parent with out having sex with a partner.
Bruce believed it also by saying,
Joseph Fielding Smith believed and taught this also.
Doctrines of Salvation vol 1 pg 18.
JoD 2:118
"Because who cares? Really? How does dedicating class time to discussing one of several methods Joseph used"
err… because then mormons won´t go out into the world looking like idiots when they are confronted by people who actually know the history?
"which necessitates going into the context of 1800s New England religious culture that regularly mixed and mingled and associated folk practices with gifts from God"
Here we go… oh, dear… Sure, looking into a seer stone is so not like looking into a crystal ball. Maybe God has actually revealed stuff to people through crystal balls, or maybe even through magic 8 balls(also known as liahona).
"which is the way Joseph always chose to answer the question" – i can spit fire and say it was done through the gift of god – so what?
"compare Joseph of egypt's divination in a glass" – where is that?!?!?!
"it's not a secret. It's just not very important, or immediately practical in our every day lives. "
It is very important and practical – because if you´re wrong, you will be going to hell after you die, right? You believe the same thing for those that don´t accept mormonism(regardless of your concept of hell).
"It's a great topic for scholarly discussion" – oh, sure, i bet! Specially if done by FAIR.
"Church classes – which are short – are focused on helping the individual apply the doctrines of the gospel in living a Christ-like life, and helping them learn how to better serve their fellow man."
Really? How can anyone truly apply any principles, if they are barely taught the scriptures correctly? Oh – i know, they are taught to shut up and do what the "prophets" and "apostles" commanded them they should learn and do. Your own thinking is only allowed if your leash is tight enough to your testimony.
Are you saying you approve of gay marriage? I went to that website,but didn't want to keep reading,because they seemed to be saying they thought that was fine in some instances.The Bible is very clear what God thinks of it under any circumstances at all.Please clarify what you meant. Are you for gay marriage,or not?
dltayman,
You might not agree but here are things the LDS church does that I feel are hiding information.
The original history of the church verses the newest edition, their are something close to 4,000 changes. No mention ever made that these changes took place. Why might that be.
You might feel the book Mormon doctrine is not "official" church book, but between the 1958 and the 1966 version, much has been changed, many love to call the 1966 version the "sanitized" version, yet again no written mention of these changes were put in the books.
The Book of mormon has been revised like 4 times and no mention of changes were ever mentioned. The D and C had the lectures of faith removed and it was never stated in the D and C that I recall. Their were changes made in the original D and C and the original Pearl, yet these were never mentioned in the newest edition. Say what you want, but this is only a few books that are put out in one way or another by your church, and no mention of changes being made or why. That is hiding information and nothing short of deceitful because they are changing information and not telling anyone. why would they not tell us that things were changed?
I am for any kind of marriage. And what your god says about it really does not bother me in the very least. I believe that people should LOVE and BE LOVED.
"it does not mean that we LDS (who have a recommend) think we are better than anyone else."
Until you start talking about religion. Then the mormons usually act as if they know everything they need to know already, they are the only ones right and the rest of the world is in spiritual darkness. If someone disagrees they will not address the questions but they will tell you to pray about it, and if you push them they might say they don´t have a clue – that doesn´t mean they´ll doubt anything they´ve been taught though, it will be just one more of those things they´ll never know in this life, or that it is not important for salvation.
"The clerk should not know these details as they are not pertinent to his calling"
I´ve been in Elder´s Quorum presidency, and i also was a ward mission leader once. I participated in many correlation meetings where those things were openly discussed(with other people from other organizations of the priesthood, plus secretaries as well – since the secretary appointed took notes of people who went to the temple to keep a control, to make sure we had enough people for a session, or just to remember the bishop to review the situation of some of the couples that hadn´t been sealed yet). If that´s the church rule, i don´t know, but i´ve never seen that information being that well kept at all.
Here's the problem, the Mormon religion is based on the concept of works related worthiness in order to become a god. A Mormon male will not be granted the status of becoming a god unless certain "works" are completed. By doing the works, which include righteous living, the giving of money to the church and completing temple rituals, the Mormon male gets to morph into a god. This is the process of achieving worthiness. In my opinion, it all fits together as part of the same system. The achieving of god status is the point of Mormonism. Eternal progression is the process by which worthiness leads to the pay-off. Morphing into a god cannot be done unless a Mormon male progresses through the system.
Give me another word, it all means the same thing.
I found this very interesting, the author was talking about what he thought the future of the mormon church would be:
"My second scenario is that the church doctrine will become so watered down, Mormonism will become more of a lifestyle movement than a church patterned after Christ. The myths of Joseph Smith's restoration are so far removed from mainstream Christian thought, that Mormon theology will never be widely embraced in a Jewish-Christian society. But there's a strong business imperative among church leadership — growth in membership is seen as essential. I believe the church's emphasis will shift away from its troubling historic roots. Despite all the advertising to the contrary, the real driver of Mormon life is not a relationship with Christ, it's being able to say yes to the questions in the temple recommend interview. The exclusive, supposedly empowering experience of attending the temple will define Mormon life well into the future. Look at how many temples are under consruction today."
There is no "worthiness" concept in Christianity as it pertains to someone who is born again by the Spirit of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons just don't seem to be able to wrap their brains around this concept that Christians are saved through the love, mercy and benevolence of a righteous God. Mormons want to "do" something and it relates directly back to a transformational experience where they, by completing certain duties, will purify themselves into gods. That's the real bug-a-boo in Mormonism. BTW, there are other Mormon sects who totally reject this entire concept and align themselves with original Mormonism, before Smith's creativity and ego led him into bizarre and aberrant beliefs and practices under the cover of "progressive revelation". In Mormonism there is no real standard by which to measure whether or not a new revelation is true. It's just true…..period…because it's new.
The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans addresses the concept of "worthiness". In chapter 3 verse 10 he quotes Psalm 14:1-3 where he writes: "There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does Good, There is not even one."
This is the status of man, no matter how he tries, he will not morph himself into a righteous or worthy creature in God's eyes. However Mormonism, not even being a distant cousin of Christianity, has a system where it is believed that men can become worthy to attain to becoming a god. In the Book of Acts, some Jews, who had become Christians, insisted that the gentile believers be circumcised. The answer by the leadership of the Church was a resounding "no". Paul again, writing to the Phillippians, lists his faithfulness as a Jew; doing all of the requirements of his religion and concludes: "…..I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."
Of course Paul was talking to Christians. These words will make no sense to Mormons who, not being born again by the Spirit of God, have bought into a system that tells them if they do enough they themselves can become gods. Is it any wonder that the Christian concept of works being a compliment and praise of thanksgiving for what God has done for us will make no sense to those who think that their works can bring them a measure of personal worthiness.
" I believe the church's emphasis will shift away from its troubling historic roots. "
Which is, of course, why the Church History Department have begun several exhaustive and unprecedented historical documentation project, such as the Joseph Smith Papers, which have been and are publishing every single document attributed to Joseph (Endorsed by The National Historical Publications and Records Commission), an exhaustive book on Mountain Meadows was published by the Church Historians, with a sequel on the aftermath in the works, another Church History Department employee publishing the most exhaustively detailed and in depth book on the Kirtland Period every produced (Hearken O Ye People: The Historical setting of Joseph Smith's Kirtland Revelations) , the Church History Department currently working on a new exhaustive Comprehensive History of the Church, and an exhaustive study on the practice of Polygamy in the Church's history.
And if you've even glanced at any of those already-published works, you'll see that nothing is watered down.
And even more are in the works. You ain't seen nothin' yet.
"Until you start talking about religion. Then the[y] usually act as if they know everything they need to know already, they are the only ones right and the rest of the world is in spiritual darkness"
Isn't that actually how you feel? That's totally the vibe I get when I'm told I'm scripturally illiterate, I need to read the Bible Only, and I'm going to hell because I don't believe as you do.
"compare Joseph of egypt's divination in a glass" – where is that?!?!?! "
Genesis 44:2-5
—-"The original history of the church verses the newest edition, their are something close to 4,000 changes. No mention ever made that these changes took place. Why might that be. –"—-
What are you talking about? You mean the BH Roberts edited version that came out in the 1900s?
You do know that the Church History Department is the process of publishing the original manuscript documents written by Joseph Smith and his scribes as part of the Joseph Smith Papers, right? ( http://josephsmithpapers.org/DocumentSelector.htm… ) – The classic BH Roberts edition recently went out of print as well, most likely to make room for the coming JSP manuscript version.
—–"You might feel the book Mormon doctrine is not "official" church book, but between the 1958 and the 1966 version, much has been changed, many love to call the 1966 version the "sanitized" version, yet again no written mention of these changes were put in the books. "—–
Umm… of course it was mentioned. Apart from the fact that anything marked 'Second Edition' is clearly different from a First Edition, it states in the preface, "As is common with major encyclopedic-type works, experience has shown the wisdom of making some changes, clarifications, and additions'. Who cares, anyway? Never was an official Church publication, and it's not even in print any more.
—-=The Book of mormon has been revised like 4 times and no mention of changes were ever mentioned.—–=
You mean apart from the note that says, " errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith."? – oh, and have you seen this page on the newest version of the Church's website, under the topical heading, "Book of Mormon, Changes To"? –> http://new.lds.org/study/topics/book-of-mormon-ch…
—–"The D and C had the lectures of faith removed and it was never stated in the D and C that I recall. Their were changes made in the original D and C and the original Pearl, yet these were never mentioned in the newest edition–"——–
Apart from where it says, "Beginning with the 1835 edition a series of seven theological lessons was also included; these were titled the “Lectures on Faith.” These had been prepared for use in the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1834-1835. Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church."
Oh, and have you seen the volume of the Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations, published by the Church History Department, which contains full page photographs of all the earliest manuscripts of the revelations, complete with fully annotated strikeouts, edits, emendations, revisions, etc, and color-coded by person's handwriting, along with a full and expansive essays documenting such process? ( http://bit.ly/ce7yQN )
—-==Say what you want, but this is only a few books that are put out in one way or another by your church, and no mention of changes being made or why.—===
Time to do a little more research, Rick, and get up to date.
Don't worry. I don't consider this lying. I just consider it being misinformed.
Thank you.You cleared that up for me.I was afraid you were Christian.I see your not.I will warn you though,God is very opposed to homosexual activity,and has said they will be distroyed.He rained "fire,and brimstone"down on Sodom,and Gomorrah for that reason,and He said "I change not".So for your own eternal good I ask that you consider your eternal destiny in light of His warnings in the Bible.He said those who won't repent of their sins,and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior will have their place in the "Lake of fire".I pray you will think about this,and be saved.Though He said some will shake their fists at Him,and refuse,their destiny will be the same,"the lake of Fire".He would not have you "perish",but you will,if you don't.Think hard what you face,if you don't. Is anything worth that!?Anything!!!!!You would say then "IT"S NOT!!!!!!".But it would be TOO LATE! His warning is laid before you.Salvation,or your lust,with it's consequences ("the lake of fire").It's that simple.Your choice. CHOOSE.
–"Why is it so hard for you to understand, I said, some things are from MRM website. "–
Because what you actually said was very specific: "The section I posted about questions to think about, was taken From the Mormonism researech minstry website." Then you said, "If it was not cited then it was my work."
Is anything else in that post apart from the 'section about questions to think about' anything else than "[your] own work"?
You really wish I was lying, and your the one who is misinformed.
You said,
I care and here is why. Yes changes were made, it says in a generic sense they were made, but never tells us what was changed or why. Here is why it matters, Bruce Mc said in the 1958 edition
Keep in mind Bruce stated He looks to people Like Joseph Smith and Bringham Young as recognized doctrinal authorities. Notice the words "DOCTRINAL AUTHORITIES" If Bruce taught this stuff, he clearly had to learn it from BY and JS as he stated. That means these guys believed and taught this stuff also. Many people down through the years have read this and believed it, now all of a sudden, the LDS church no longer believe this stuff, so they remove it from the changes, do not note the changes, only that some were made and sweep it under the rug. So yes it is a big deal, people believed these guys and now what they taught is no longer taught. How does that line up with what JS said when he said this.
Thats a pretty bold statement to all of a sudden have so many changes in scripture and massive contradictions between LDS prophets and presidents.
You said
Thats great, but here is the problem, I happen to own a copy of 1977 edition, it very clearly states "published by the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints, salt lake city, Utah, U.S.A. 1977. no mention of any changes, thats a problem. Now here is the trouble I am having, you say I'm ignorant on this issue, I have told you before, or at least I think I said this before. In all my years of talking with LDS, LDS have made it very clear their have never been any changes. So where did they get this information? They have heard it before, so either LDS are lying, or ignorant, and this includes you, or I am making things up. Well this statement shows It is you guys who are either lying or ignorant and the teaching of no errors or changes was true, read this, Joseph Fielding Smith has claimed that there is no truth in the statement that there have been thousands of changes in the Book of Mormon. He was reported as saying the following at the fall conference of 1961:
Now add to that, that according to JS, He stuck his face in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon, and if his scribe wrote down the letter correctly then it would disappear from the golden plates. If that really happened, then if any changes were made, even if it was malicious and by evil people printing the BoM, Then how would we know what the correct version was supposed to be since we have no golden plates to check against? I thought their was no changes, now their is changes, yet no evidence of what was the correct version and what was not.
I would also like to add, even to this day, If the local news paper put out a correction in a paper, they say exactly what the correction was, they dont simply make a generic statement saying, were sorry, we had a mistake and it was corrected, they tell us exactly what was corrected. since the BoM has been "corrected" like 4 or 5 times, is it to much to ask, what exactly was corrected and why they could not get it all the first time. why did it happen 4-5 times?
Mormon Doctrine wasn't written by a prophet or a president.
–"Keep in mind Bruce stated He looks to people Like Joseph Smith and Bringham Young as recognized doctrinal authorities. Notice the words "DOCTRINAL AUTHORITIES" If Bruce taught this stuff, he clearly had to learn it from BY and JS as he stated. That means these guys believed and taught this stuff also. " —
I'm not sure you realize how absurd your logic is here. I'll lay it out for you.
1. Personal A writes what he believes.
2. Personal A states persons B and C are looked to as doctrinal authorities who inspired his writings
3. Therefore, Person A must have learned everything he wrote directly from B and C
3. Therefore, B and C taught everything person A is writing.
Let's put this another way.
1. Billy Bob writes his beliefs according to his understanding.
2. Billy Bob says he looks to the words of Jesus Christ as a doctrinal authority.
3. Therefore, anything Billy Bob writes must have been learned directly from Jesus Christ.
4. Therefore, Jesus Christ must have taught all of the expounded beliefs written by Billy Bob
Can you not see how this is incredibly fallacious logic?
You used an unauthorized book written by Bruce McConkie as a strawman against all that was actually taught by Joseph and Brigham.
That's like saying a revised Evangelical biblical commentary is actually revising and denying the original teachings of Jesus, because elements of their interpretation may have been updated in the 2nd edition.
So… back to my original response…any acknowledgement that you were wrong concerning the 'covering up' of changes in the standard works/history?
"Isn't that actually how you feel? That's totally the vibe I get when I'm told I'm scripturally illiterate, I need to read the Bible Only, and I'm going to hell because I don't believe as you do."
No, that isn´t how i feel at all. You are Bible illiterate not because i know more than you, but because your entire interpretation of the Bible is based on the teachings of a false prophet, and on false doctrines made up recently.
If someone comes up to me and tell me my interpretation of a passage is wrong, i´ll analyze it, and maybe that will require me to change a belief about it. In mormonism if you attempt to do that you might be risking your neck in the organization.
"and I'm going to hell because I don't believe as you do" don´t throw that at me – you do the same thing, and so do your 50M missionaries…
You really hate the truth dont you? That or you ignore what was said by Bruce, bruce said
Your church allowed this to be published and re-published and the was even sold in Mormon bookstores, where do you think I got my copy from. Then to say all this was wrong, thats a lot of LDS who both bought and read this that believed it to be lead to believe things that were not true, and some LDS leaders that were believing lies, since they believed this enough to allow it to be published.
Since your asking me this, I am lead to believe you did not read what I wrote,
I clearly gave a statement by JFS Who said their were no changes, now your saying their are, so was I wrong? It seems their were changes, But either your Church is full of liars, or your lying, since My books as I said, indicate NO CHANGES WERE EVER MADE, I can if need be put together package for you of photo copies of my 1977 edition that makes no mention of changes, yet there were changes made since you say their was. from my reading your leader either lied or he is clueless, and my book again makes no mention of changes, so how am I wrong, I am using your leaders statements and books. If their is a problem, it's not with me, but your teachers and books being dishonest and not mentioning changes.
"which have been and are publishing every single document attributed to Joseph"
Every single one? Prove it.
Those JS papers is the church´s effort in trying to lessen the impact member have when they find out the truth – the shock is so great that the whole faith of many people crumbles. I wonder if they actually are going to address the difficulties it presents in church, for the everyday members.
"the Church History Department currently working on a new exhaustive Comprehensive History of the Church"
I´ll direct you to a website the shows how church history has been mangled over the years – that comment was so naive.
"you'll see that nothing is watered down." Who says Steve Jobs is the only one who knows how to use the reality distortion field?
"And even more are in the works. You ain't seen nothin' yet."
Neither have the regular members – and they won´t!
Often, when Mormons are presented with statements from their leaders that could cause some difficulty for them, many will respond by saying something like "Oh, that's just his opinion. Its not the official view of the Mormon Church." Often, when Mormons talk about official doctrines of the Church they usually mean the Standard Works: The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrines and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
Although many Mormons do not view other LDS writings as official Scripture (for example, The Seer or The Journal of Discourses), it should be remembered that many of these writings consist of the words of very prominent leaders in the Mormon Church. As such individuals commanded great respect they were certainly influential over the rank and file. Their statements must have carried some weight. Mormon leaders in prominent positions, like Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and Bruce R. McConkie, influenced those who looked to them for leadership. The words of these early LDS leaders did not just go out into a vacuum, they went the hearts and minds of the Mormon people and were incorporated into their beliefs.
It would also seem that many Mormon leaders have tended to view their words as carrying a great deal of weight. For example, regarding the sermons of Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses it is interesting to look at some of Young's words himself as to how he viewed what was contained in the Discourses:
"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 to the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office…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." (Journal of Discourses, vol.13.p.95. Also see vol.13.p.264).
Even though it is fashionable for today's Mormons to say that they will not accept statements which are not officially classed as revelation, or Scripture, I came across the following quote of a BYU professor which I thought was interesting regarding this very issue:
"…While certain doctrines are enunciated in the standard works and some doctrinal issues have been addressed in formal pronouncements by the First Presidency, there is nothing in Mormonism comparable to the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Augsberg Confession. Few of the truly distinctive doctrines of Mormonism are discussed in official sources. It is mainly by unofficial means — Sunday School lessons, seminary, institute, and BYU religion classes, sacrament meeting talks and books by Church officials and others who ultimately speak only for themselves — that the theology is passed from one generation to the next. Indeed it would seem that a significant part of Mormon theology exists primarily in the minds of the members… the absence of a formal creed means that each generation must produce a new set of gospel expositors to restate and reinterpret the doctrines of Mormonism." (Peter Crawley, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1982).
Related to the above observations from the BYU professor, it can be pointed out that there are some doctrines of Mormonism that are simply not found in the official Standard Works. The LDS doctrine of their being a "Mother in Heaven" is one example. Nowhere is this doctrine found in any of the official Standard Works of the Church. However, such a doctrine is vital in the Mormon concept of eternal progression. If God was not married to His wife in Mormonism then He could never have become God in the first place.