The Doctrine of Christ

The latest speculation about Mormon doctrine comes from lawyer turned “apostle” D. Todd Christofferson who spoke about the subject at the April 2012 General Conference, calling it “The Doctrine of Christ.”

LDS Leaders Then-NowIn this talk Christofferson makes the following observation:

“In some faith traditions, theologians claim equal teaching authority with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and doctrinal matters may become a contest of opinions between them. Some rely on the ecumenical councils of the Middle Ages and their creeds. Others place primary emphasis on the reasoning of post-apostolic theologians or on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.”

According to Christofferson, then, Mormon doctrine is the teaching of “authorized” church leaders given by “divine revelation.” He continues,

“At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that ‘a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.’

“President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:

“ ‘To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk.’”

In a footnote, Christofferson adds that Clark didn’t actually know if the story his father told even happened. So for Christofferson and Clark, an unverified story, perhaps folklore, illustrates the principle that even the President of the Church himself may not always be moved upon by the Holy Ghost when he addresses the people? This is not what those like Orson Hyde said about Brigham Young:

“Some persons say that Brigham does not give revelations as did Joseph Smith. But let me tell you, that Brigham’s voice has been the voice of God from the time he was chosen to preside, and even before. …He possesses skill, wisdom, and power that trouble wise men and rulers. God will make him a greater terror to nations than he ever has been. I will now quote a few passages from the revelations of God as contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants:—‘My words shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice out of the heavens, or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.’ Again, concerning his servants—‘Whatsoever you shall speak by my Spirit shall be Scripture—shall be the word of the Lord, the will of the Lord, the mind of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.’ Again, from the New Testament, Jesus says, ‘Whosoever heareth you (whom I send) heareth me.’” (Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 8:234-235, October 7, 1860)

Which Mormon “prophet,” will they claim, didn’t have the “constant companionship” of the Holy Ghost? If they can’t tell us that, then they can’t say the “prophet” did not always speak by his power.

“Apostle” Moses Thatcher claimed that unlike “hireling” Christians, Mormons speak the truth when delivering doctrine to the “saints”:

“They [the elders of Israel] speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost and not as those paid with a price. A true servant of God is not afraid of public opinion, but will rebuke that opinion if wrong. …I bear to you my testimony that Wilford Woodruff is a prophet of the Most High God. I know that he speaks by revelation. He communes with Brigham Young, though Brigham Young, we say, is dead. Joseph, the great modern prophet since death, has communed with our venerable living leader. Thus are we lead step by step through the inspiration that comes from God and his servants;…” (Brian Stuy, Collected Discourses 2:316-317, November 2, 1891)

Brigham YoungBrigham Young was emphatic that neither he nor anyone authorized by him ever taught false doctrine and challenged the world to show otherwise:

“You may ask the question: Has no one Elder in Israel ever taught false doctrine? Yes, but no man has who has been authorized to teach, guide and direct the Saints. Did Jesus, Peter, James, John or Joseph Smith ever teach a false or incorrect doctrine? Not that you or I know of; we cannot find it.” (Journal of Discourses 12:310, November 29, 1868)

“I am at the defiance of earth and hell to put a finger on the place or time that a false doctrine was taught to any one, a wrong taught to any one, or when evil was justified in any one, all the liars and all the lies on earth and in hell to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Journal of Discourses 13:217, July 17, 1870)

This would include Young’s teachings on Adam-god, blood atonement, and the priesthood ban on blacks.

Brigham Young also said that false doctrine, if taught, would be detected by the “saints” almost immediately:

“I can say this for the Latter-day Saints, and I will say it to their praise and my satisfaction, if I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, ‘I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!’ … I will defy any man, to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders. of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it.” (Journal of Discourses 14:205, August 13, 1871)

What is Christofferson talking about when he says that “It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church?” He gives no specifics, but I can provide examples from Conference Addresses when the speaker gives his opinion — and clearly states that it is an “opinion.” Here’s one:

“In my opinion, there were classes and races, and separation into different groups and conditions before we came to this world, and all are getting what they are entitled to receive here.” (Melvin J. Ballard, Conference Report, April 1915, 62. For a few more examples see Journal of Discourses 1:220, 8:21; Collected Discourses 4:277; Conference Report October 1951, 85)

The Conference Addresses of the Church (from the Journal of Discourses to the present) are full of such opinions. How can you know when these men are giving their opinions? Why, they tell you so.

Christofferson would have members think Church leaders are prone to intermix opinion, speculation and folklore in with their doctrinal teachings without mentioning it, perhaps forgetting that they are (and were) commanded to speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. Wilford Woodruff taught the opposite:

“When the Apostles and Elders of Israel are called to teach you, when they are called to go abroad and to teach the inhabitants of the earth, they are commanded of the Lord to speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and when a man speaks as he is moved upon by the Holy Ghost, it is the word of the Lord, it is the mind of the Lord, it is the will of the Lord, it is Scripture, it is the power of God unto salvation unto every one that believes. If we do not have the Holy Ghost we have no business to teach. But when the Elders of Israel do teach you by the Holy Ghost, you have the revelations of God to you. We have these revelations lying before us for our guidance day by day, as well as the living oracles.” (Brian Stuy, Collected Discourses 2:46, April 6, 1890)

Try to pin down these current “apostles” about how and when Mormon “prophets” and “apostles” did not have the gift of the Holy Spirit, or when their “apostles” were not authorized to teach and proclaim doctrine. They will not give any satisfactory answers. What is the doctrine of Christ according to Mormon Scripture? It is the voice of Christ spoken through his servants by the power of the Holy Ghost:

“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38)

Since no Mormon audience that we know of ever spoke out against any of the sermons in the Journal of Discourses or subsequent Conference Reports, we can rest assured that these men were speaking by the “power of the Holy Ghost” and were indeed teaching doctrine and scripture unless (as they did frequently) they indicated that they were just giving their opinion.

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

107 Responses to The Doctrine of Christ

  1. Kenneth says:

    Thanks for the excellent article, grindael. I’d like to add this quote by Brigham Young printed in The Latter-day Saints’ Millenial Star:

    “We do not wish incorrect and unsound doctrines to be handed down to posterity under the sanction of great names, to be received and valued by future generations as authentic and reliable … Errors in history and doctrine, if left uncorrected by us who are conversant with the events, and who are in a position to judge of the truth or falsity of the doctrines, would go to our children as though we had sanctioned and endorsed them.”

    It sounds like Brigham Young was adamantly opposed to allowing mistaken speculation to be spread under the guise of authoritative teaching.

  2. Silkworm says:

    In Europe Christianity is losing ground. Within twenty years Atheists will outnumber Christians in Europe. In 1910 Christians made up 35% of the worlds population. Today Christians make up 32% of the worlds population. The LDS religion is not the only religion to lose members. People are leaving Christianity, especially in Europe, where once upon a time the majority of Christians resided.

  3. Old man says:

    Shem

    “There is no verifiable record of his having relations with any woman that was not his wife, despite the desperate attempts of critics to prove otherwise.”

    Oh boy, you really are living in never never land, are you saying that all the women who said exactly that were lying. Are you saying that When Emma caught him at it she was mistaken?

    “He never once uttered a prophecy that was not fulfilled to the last detail.”

    What planet are you living on? Would you like me to give you a list of all the FAILED prophecies? I could fill several pages with them. On second thoughts it would take far too long so it might be easier if you gave us, let’s say, 2 prophecies that were fulfilled to the last detail. Come down to Earth Shem stop living in cloud cuckoo land, it’s time to face reality.

    In typical Mormon fashion you take a verse from the Bible & twist it’s meaning to suit your purpose. You don’t really understand scripture so you quote James 1:5 in defence of your argument.
    Let’s look at who & what exactly he is saying. James is talking to Christians not to people who want to know if the BofM is true, God has provided all the information we need in scripture to determine that. That’s exactly what the Bereans did in response to Pauls preaching. James is telling us to pray for wisdom but what is wisdom? Wisdom is the CORRECT application of knowledge so let’s use the Berean example again. Paul preached the message of the Gospel to them & what did they do? Well, they certainly didn’t pray to know if what he said was true. What they did was to search the scriptures to see if Paul was correct & after putting two & two together they realised that Paul was giving them the truth. In other words they applied WISDOM TO THE INFORMATION THEY ALREADY HAD. Yes Shem, strange as it may seem to your LDS mindset they used Scripture to determine truth. Go back & read my post again, especially the Christian commentary that I pasted at the end. You never know, you might even apply what you learn to the BofM & come to realise that you’ve been following a false prophet for all these years.
    That’s all I have time for at the moment, this will be my last post for a couple of weeks so if you’re confused please ask any of the Christians in here to straighten you out.

  4. MistakenTestimony says:

    Shem said,

    “He never once uttered a prophecy that was not fulfilled to the last detail.”

    I just thought that was worth repeating. This coming from a guy who believes that the Book of Mormon is an asset rather than a liability.

  5. MistakenTestimony says:

    Silkworm,

    You said, “The LDS religion is not the only religion to lose members. People are leaving Christianity, especially in Europe, where once upon a time the majority of Christians resided.” Thanks for admitting that the “LDS religion” and “Christianity” are separate religions. So, you are shown that LDS retention rate is one of the worst in the world and that about a third of all claimed members (according to the corporation) would even self-identify as LDS and your response is that Christians are losing members as well? Not the argument at hand, you missed the point.

  6. Rick B says:

    Shem, just to name one Joseph smith failed prophecy, can you say, the temple in Missouri? That never was built in the time Joseph claimed it would be, and it never will be.

  7. grindael says:

    He never once uttered a prophecy that was not fulfilled to the last detail.

    This is simply delusional. Jo Smith uttered MANY “prophecies” that were not fulfilled. So many that it boggles the mind that anyone would ever call him a prophet. He predicted that Nauvoo would become the greatest city in the world, that the “saints” would ‘redeem’ Zion (in Missouri) by September 11, 1836, that his generation (that was then living) would see Christ return, that Christ would return within 50 years of 1840 (1890), and a host of others too numerous to mention. These are the FACTS folks. Shem’s denying this and lying about it from inside the Mormon Bubble does not change them.

    The thing is, we can list his false prophecies (as we have time after time) and people like Shem will see it, but just deny that it’s there. They will refuse to believe the truth, and simply close their eyes to it and lie to your face about it. He loves it in his bubble, his Mormon Bubble of Denial. Where he can feel all good about following his “modern prophets” down the road to ruin.

  8. grindael says:

    In Europe Christianity is losing ground. Within twenty years Atheists will outnumber Christians in Europe. In 1910 Christians made up 35% of the worlds population. Today Christians make up 32% of the worlds population. The LDS religion is not the only religion to lose members. People are leaving Christianity, especially in Europe, where once upon a time the majority of Christians resided.

    Here is the difference between Christians and Mormons who refuse to take off the blinders that induce them to worship their church organization instead of Jesus. You see, Mormons don’t worship Christ, they worship their Church. Our church is big and strong and will take over the world. You get the idea. But the sad thing is, Christians deal with reality. It is predicted in the Bible that in the last days, the hearts of people will “wax cold”, and they will turn from the right way. This is no surprise. Christianity was never a “numbers game”.

    The Father draws the sheep to Jesus and they know his voice. No one can then pluck them out of his hand. The fact is, no one knows when Jesus will return. There are preachers all over TV and in the bookstores that for years have made every kind of blunder and interpretation of events that can be imagined. No “religion” is free from such things, and never will be. The problem with Mormonism (as much as they try to deny it these days) is that they claim they are the only TRUE and LIVING “church” on the face of the earth, and have been since Jo Smith wrote his fantasy about the Nephites. But he forgot all about what Jesus and His Apostles said,

    Jesus said,

    Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak'” (Matthew 26:41).

    After his resurrection, he said,

    “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority” (Acts 1:7).

    Paul said,

    “Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13).

    Numbers are an illusion. Contrast the sleek, rich preachers of today, and the Mormon Suits in Salt Lake City in their lofty towers and fat cat lifestyles with this,

    They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.” 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.

    7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.

    11 But after the three and a half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. 12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.

    13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

    14 The second woe has passed; the third woe is coming soon. (Revelation Chapter 11 1-14)

    The prophets will be among the people, doing what real prophets do, PROPHESYING. They will have power. What does this have to do with us? We are told to “watch and wait”. Nothing has changed. The Doctrine of Christ, (his teachings in the Bible) will prepare Christians for anything. They will not be deceived by sleight of hand tricks and magic stones in hats. The Mormon Hierarchy cares only about the “image” of the church. In this, they follow the world. There is no way for anyone who says they follow the Doctrine of Christ to justify spending millions of dollars on PR. The body of Christ is not a building. You cannot serve two masters but like so many others, they can’t see the forest for the trees.

  9. grindael says:

    Ken,

    That is what Mormons try and suppress about Young. He was fanatical about correctly taught doctrine. He read and edited constantly. He approved all of his sermons in the Journal of Discourses, and the Church publications. One time, a sermon was published in England before Young could approve it, and he was livid, because they got something wrong about the Seventies and the Priesthood. Mormons would have you believe that these things just went out there, helter skelter, without any oversight whatsoever. This is dead wrong. These men claimed to be the “oracles of God” and they took it seriously. That is why when confronted with the evidence, the Mormons will run from this kind of a discussion, and instead try and divert it to something else. Not one of them had given any evidence to directly challenge the OP. I won’t hold my breath waiting for any, either. They simply repeat the invented lie that everything has to be voted on to be true. A most ridiculous argument, hatched in desperation and carried on in deception. They can’t own their former “prophets” statements for what they were, because the truth claims of the church would be destroyed. But little by little that is happening anyway, and the only people that will stick with it, will be the deluded who love their participation and importance as a member of the Mormon social club. I think the password this week is “Pey-Le-El”. No touching is now required, except for the handshakes with the kung fu grip.

  10. grindael says:

    I had this conversation on Facebook a few years ago, and mentioned the quote that Kenneth produced above. Here is what I wrote about it. Sorry for the length, but I’ve been accused here, of “quote mining”, which is patently absurd. The “Clark” that I mention is J. Reuben Clark:

    One Mormon told me:

    The JOD are not necessarily the same as conference talks. They were written by second hand witnesses, and not by the speaker. Nor were they approved or edited by the apostles, and they were never sustained or approved by the body of the church. So, they are useful from a historic standpoint, but are in no way considered declarations of truth, as the Ensign transcripts are.”

    I will get back to this in a minute. Notice that Clark says, about the verse I quoted (D&C 68):

    “The very words of the revelation recognize that the Brethren may speak when they are not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”; yet only when they do speak as “moved upon” is what they say considered SCRIPTURE. NO EXCEPTIONS ARE GIVEN TO THIS RULE OR PRINCIPLE. It is universal in its application.” (J. Reuben Clark, Address to Seminary Students, BYU July 7, 1854)

    Mormons selectively accept this today, and add the caveat, only when it is voted upon, which is a modern fabrication. One Mormon said to me,

    “By definition, anything a Prophet or General Authority says CONTAINS “sacred doctrines and precepts.” It does not make every word that drops out of their mouths or drips out of the ends of their pens doctrine.”

    But that is NOT what the JOD are. What was bound in those 26 volumes, and are only about 30% of all the talks that [George] Watt and others copied down. And then we have the setting, in a Conference Address before the whole Church, where one would assume, would be the prime place where ‘living prophets and apostles’ WOULD be inspired by the Holy Ghost. Also, many of the sermons were published in the Deseret News, and approved by Young and others (which I will show below).

    But what is interesting here, is that to make his point, what does Clark do? He quotes Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses! This happens time after time, and it’s ok for them to do so, but not anyone who is a critic. Again, double standard.

    Brigham Young also said:

    “We do not wish incorrect and unsound doctrines to be handed down to posterity under the sanction of great names, to be received and valued by future generations as authentic and reliable … Errors in history and doctrine, if left uncorrected by us who are conversant with the events, and who are in a position to judge of the truth or falsity of the doctrines, would go to our children as though we had sanctioned and endorsed them.” Millennial Star, vol. 27, p. 659 (1865)

    I’m not going to get into a Canon debate here. I’m well aware that not EVERYTHING is BINDING scripture. But is it DOCTRINE? Robert Millet says it best:

    “If the general authorities do not teach something today, it is not part of our DOCTRINE today. That does not, however, mean that a particular teaching IS UNTRUE. A teaching may be true and yet not a part of what is taught and emphasized by the Church TODAY. In fact, if the Brethren do not teach it today, if it is not taught directly in the standard works, or if it is not found in our correlated curriculum, whether it is true or not may actually be irrelevant.” – Robert Millet, Getting at the Truth, p. 66

    When is the truth irrelevant? Only in Mormonism, when it contradicts their “Correlated truth”. Let’s go back to Young. Here is a great verse that Mormons love to pull out of the JOD:

    “Now, let me ask the Latter-day Saints, you who are here in this house this day, how do you know that your humble servant is really, honestly, guiding and counseling you aright, and directing the affairs of the kingdom aright? Let you be ever so true and faithful to your friends and never forsake them, never turn traitor to the Gospel which you have espoused, but live on in neglect of your duty, how do you know but I am teaching false doctrine? How do you know that I am not counseling you wrong? How do you know but I will lead you to destruction? And this is what I wish to urge upon you—live so that you can discern between the truth and error, between light and darkness, between the things of God and those not of God, for by the revelations of the Lord, and these alone, can you and I understand the things of God.”

    I’m surprised Clark didn’t quote this one too. But it is what Young says after, that makes my point:

    “But to return to my question to the Saints, “How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?” By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin? I sometimes say to my brethren, “I have been your dictator for twenty-seven years—over a quarter of a century I have dictated this people; that ought to be some evidence that my course is onward and upward. But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? Sisters can you tell the difference? I can say this for the Latter-day Saints, and I will say it to their praise and my satisfaction, if I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!” All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach, if you think you have one. It would not sit well on the mind, for you are seeking after the things of God; you have started out for life and salvation, and with all their ignorance, wickedness and failings, the majority of this people are doing just as well as they know how; and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it.”( Brigham Young, JOD 14:204-06)

    How sad these modern Mormons must be. How sad that they would throw every Mormon under the bus from those days by admitting that these men taught “folklore” and that not one person in the church ever stood up and objected to it. That for years they just let it go. That they would believe the modern pack of lies they were sold about such things. But another Mormon “Authority” says:

    “What we get out of general conference is a build-up of our spirits as we listen to those particular principles and practices of the gospel which the Lord inspires the present leadership of the Church to bring to our attention at the time. He knows why he inspired Brother Joseph F. Merrill to give the talk he just gave. He knows why he inspired the other brethren who have talked in this conference to say what they have said. It is our high privilege to hear, through these men, WHAT THE LORD WOULD SAY IF HE WERE HERE. IF WE DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT THEY SAY, it is because WE ARE OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD.” (Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1950, p.126)

    So it is not the “authorities” that have the problem, it is those who are not AGREEING WITH THEM. Brigham Young says:

    “I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected, and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it.”

    Again and again they call their preaching DOCTRINE. Lorenzo Snow said:

    “If you Saints here do not know this work is the work of God, it is your duty to rise up and declare you have been deceived, acknowledge that the Spirit of God has not been given you, and that the declaration of the Elder who promised it is entirely false, and thus try and correct the error which you have been guilty of propagating.” (Lorenzo Snow, Journal of Discourses 14:306)

    Far from doing that, those sermons were bound up in books and published, with CORRECTION AND APPROVAL! Do Mormons think, that no one read them back then? That they weren’t gone over and that if there was false doctrine or mistakes, Young would have let them go? They tore apart Amasa Lyman for a sermon of his that got in there. Young said NO to my question, in 1865 in the Millennial Star. He was pretty fanatical about this one thing. Mormons repeat over and over that Smith said he was only a prophet when he is acting like one, but he also said:

    “I never told you I was perfect, but there has been NO ERROR in the REVELATIONS that I have received.” Many of Smith’s ‘revelations’ were not canonized IN HIS LIFETIME. But that didn’t mean that they were not considered REVELATIONS.

    Is what we take from Addresses to the Church, just ANYTHING? Nope. They are remarks in a setting that [according to Mormon “prophets”] lends itself to the spirit of inspiration. Clarifying D&C 68, in the Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual, Section 68 it states:

    “Scripture is the mind and will of God revealed through His servants. Peter declared, “Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” ( 2 Peter 1:21 ). Such scripture has been written and preserved in the standard works as priceless gems of eternal truth. The standard works are NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF SCRIPTURE, however.

    As President Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

    “When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today, and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church. We depend, of course, upon the guidance of the brethren who are entitled to inspiration.”

    But try having a conversation with a Mormon today and they will tell you that only what is voted upon is “scripture”. Ridiculous! They undermine the whole purpose of their “prophets” so they can deny doctrines that were taught in the same manner, in the same way that their “prophets” teach them today! This is the shell game that people like Alex, Shem, Silk and other Mormons play. Moses Thatcher would comment about inspiration and the Holy Spirit, in this quote from 1885:

    “Nothing to my mind can be greater sacrilege in the sight of the Almighty than to undertake to speak in His name without the inspiration of His spirit. We may talk upon the branches of human learning and knowledge, speaking after the manner of men with but little of this feeling of timidity, but NOT when we undertake to speak of the principles of life and salvation, of the plan of human redemption as it has always existed—as it existed before the foundations of the world were laid, as it will continue to exist until every child of God except the sons of perdition shall be brought back and exalted in a degree of glory far beyond the comprehension of the finite mind. It has sometimes been said that Mormonism, so called, is narrow, proscriptive and selfish; yet those who comprehend it, even in part, have never made such an assertion.

    Can a church not even bearing the name of the Redeemer, and having neither Apostles nor Prophets, bear the fruits enjoyed by the disciples of our Lord in the days of and subsequent to His ministry? Do any of them ever claim to have such fruits? Who among them HAVE THE ENDOWMENTS OF THE COMFORTER, whose mission it was and is to bring the teachings of Jesus TO THE MEMORY, show things to come and LEAD TO ALL TRUTH? God neither changes nor is he a respecter of persons; the causes, therefore, which lie ordained to produce certain results in one age will produce them in another.” (JD:26:303-4, 10)

  11. grindael says:

    Thatcher clearly understood the difference between speaking ‘after the manner of men’ and when he spoke on “the principles of life and salvation’. Mormons today, act like these men were not aware of anything of the kind. Smith himself wrote in 1833 that he knew that he was ‘accountable for every word I say’. (History of the Church 1: 312-316 for the entire letter) Brigham Young also said:

    “It is my duty to see that correct doctrine is taught and to guard the Church from error, it is my calling.” (Minutes of Council of the Twelve in upper room of Historian’s Office, April 4, 1860,” Thomas Bullock, scribe, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives.)

    Woodruff wrote on Nov. 16th 1847:

    “A vote was taken that the President shall at all times have the privilege of reproving, rebuking, exhorting and teaching at all times as he shall be led by the Holy Ghost. Council dismissed.”

    Harold B Lee said,

    “Not every word they speak should be thought of as an official interpretation or pronouncement. However, THEIR DISCOURSES TO THE SAINTS and their official writings should be considered products of their prophetic calling and should be heeded.” (Teachings of the Living Prophets, page 21)

    But not Brigham Youngs? LOL. These guys make people like Alex and Shem look ridiculous. I can go on and on about what is said here, concerning these things. [Mormons today] are definitely mistaken in [their] interpretation of D&C 68, as proven by the above statements, and published material. The sad thing is, you see these things over and over again, and yet [they] cling to [their] false interpretation of what Mormon Leaders say doctrine really is. As for that quote above by a Mormon about the JOD, that is very false. Young was adamant about correct doctrine that would stay in print. From the same published message in 1865 (which was also published in the Deseret News by the way):

    “This should be a lasting lesson to the Elders of Israel not to undertake to teach doctrine they do not understand. If the Saints can preserve themselves in a present salvation day by day, which is easy to be taught and comprehended, it will be well with them hereafter. BRIGHAM YOUNG, HEBER C. KIMBALL, DANIEL H. WELLS.”

    What was going on here? Young took objection to Lucy Smith’s book (which he implored the members to burn) and a few of Orson Pratt’s comments in the Seer. Young only says to ‘not teach doctrines you do not understand’. He does not comment about ANYTHING published in the Journal of Discourses, at all. In fact, he doesn’t mention anything else but the Seer & Lucy Smith’s book. And he didn’t like Lucy’s book because she was too revealing about the Smith’s believe in folk magic and that Jo never had a first vision, etc. etc.

    Here are a few entries from Woodruff’s journal about how much Young was involved in editing and poring over published material:

    ” February 17, 1856: I attended prayer meeting in the evening circle. President Young asked Elder Orson Pratt what he thought of his preaching that intelligent beings would continue to learn to all eternity. O. Pratt said that he believed the Gods had a knowledge at the present time of everything that ever did exist to the endless ages of all eternity. He believed it as much as any truth that he had ever learned in or out of this Church. President Young remarked that he had never learned that principle in the Church for it was not taught in the Church, for it was not true. It was false doctrine, for the Gods and all intelligent beings would never cease to learn except it was the Sons of Perdition. They would continue to decrease until they became dissolved back into their native element and lost their identity.”

    Again, the Seer. And this is NOT the current doctrinal stance of the Church. Young is wrong here, (according to the Modern Mormon “Holy Ghost”) totally wrong – Pratt was correct! (as per more ‘modern’ prophets and the modern HG). Why did no one in the room challenge Young? The answer is obvious. He was their ‘dictator’, and according to ALL OF THEM, he had the “Holy Ghost”, just as Mormons claim to have today! So how does this “Holy Ghost” accept Adam God back then, but not now? Mormons won’t tell you, they will simply lie and say that Young taught opinion, which is as false as a three dollar bill.

    March 11, 1856: “Then the subject was brought up concerning Adam being made of the dust of the earth and Elder Orson Pratt pursued a course of stubbornness and unbelief in what President Young said. That will destroy him if he does not repent and turn from his evil way, for when any man crosses the track of a leader in Israel and tries to lead the prophet, he is no longer led by him but is in danger of falling.”

    Again, Young was wrong (about Adam-god) and Pratt’s views are the standard in the Church now. But Young was on him like a flea on a dog.

    June 24, 1856: President Young said to me that G. A. Smith said in speaking of the Church History in future, that it would be the History of the Church and not of a man. I said very well, we could not write the history of the Church without writing the history of the Prophet and President of the Church. President Young conversed freely upon the subject. I inquired of the clerks of the presidents office what they had written concerning him daily. They read some to me. I do not think it is sufficiently full.”

    July 11, 1856; I am still quite lame. I spent the day at the office. I called upon President Young. Read a piece of history on Book E-1, page 1681-2, concerning Hyrum leading the Church and tracing the Aaronic Priesthood. It was in detached sentences. President Young thought it was not essential to be inserted in the history and had better be omitted. He spoke of the piece of history published in the News, Vol. vi, No. 18, concerning Joseph’s words upon South Carolina. He wished it not published.

    November 8, 1856: The Presidency and Twelve, and others met in council at the Historians Office. They took up the subject of reading the sermon of President Young’s concerning the late emigration and what caused so much suffering. He cast reflections upon J. Taylor and F. D. Richards as Taylor had hindered the brethren from doing business for several weeks. The greatest reflections were cast upon him. The Presidency finally concluded that they would strike out those sentences that cast reflections upon those brethren and print the rest.

    July 31, 1857: I spent the afternoon in the office. While in the Endowment House, President Kimball said he wished me to write the account of the saying of Joseph the Prophet when he pledged himself that he would not speak upon a certain occasion until all the Twelve had spoken. So he had to sit 3/4 of a day and hear the Twelve express their feelings, and he could not say a word. He then said to the Twelve, “You have caught me this once and I now want to give you some advice. Never get caught as I have. Never go into a corner unless you can see your way out in some manner.”

    August 28, 1857: President Young stayed 3+ hours in compiling his history. He remarked that the revelation upon a plurality of wives was given to Joseph Smith in 1831. He revealed it to Oliver Cowdery alone upon the solemn pledge that he would not reveal it or act upon it, but he did act upon it in a secret manner and that was the cause of his overthrow.

    November 26, 1857: In company with G. A. Smith, I called upon President Brigham Young and asked council about publishing the endowments or an outline of it telling the time when the Twelve received their second anointing and about the organization of the Council of 50. He gave his consent for us to publish an account of it so that the Saints might understand it. He gave into our hands all the records of the Council of 50 and all of his own private letters, notes received, pocket books, etc., which I took to the Historians Office and spent the day and evening in examining and filing. All that was notfor historical purposes I did up carefully on file to return to him.

    December 18, 1857: President Brigham Young called into the Historian’s Office 20 minutes to 10 o’clock and sat and heard his history read up to the reorganization of the Church on the 8th of August 1844. We spent the day inthe office and in the evening, we called upon President Brigham Young at his office to make some inquiry upon certain teachings of Joseph concerning the endowments.

    February 13, 1859: I spent an hour with President Young in the afternoon. He spoke upon the subject of the book published by Mother Smith called Joseph Smith, the Prophet. He said he wished us to take up that work and revise it and correct it, that it belonged to the historian to attend to it that there were many false statements made in it and he wished them to be left out and all other statements which we did not know to be true, and give the reason why they are left out. G.A. Smith and Elias Smith should be present. Elder O. Pratt published that work and bought it of A. W. Babbitt at a high price. We had a copy of it in our office. It is marvelous that he should have published it without my counsel. Many other remarks were made by President Young. (See private journal.)

    January 27, 1860: Minutes of a meeting of the Presidency and Twelve, Presidents of Seventies and others assembled in President Young’s Council Room at 6 o’clock. President Young stated the object of the meeting was to converse upon doctrinal points to see if we see alike and think alike. I pray that we may have the spirit of God to rest upon us that our minds may be upon the subject and that we may speak by the Holy Spirit.

    April 4, 1860: I attended a Council of the Presidency and Twelve at the Historians Office in the evening upon the subject of the sermon of Orson Pratt. The sermon was read and the time was occupied till half past 11 o’clock in discussing the subject.

    August 27, 1860: A certain revelation was read to President Young, given to him May 28, 1847, on Platt River in the pioneer camp. He said, record it and lay it away, but not to publish it.

    September 4, 1860: Brother Cannon said there was a learned doctor that wanted to be baptized; he believed in this work but wanted to close up his business in New York City first. Said when he was baptized that he should lay aside his practice of medicine, as he believed the Lord had provided means for the healing of his Saints without the practice of medicine. He is satisfied that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph and Brigham; for this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it. President Young said if all that God had revealed was in fine print, it would more than fill this room, but very little is written or printed which the Lord has revealed.

    December 26, 1866: The subject of a sermon preached by A. Lyman and published in the Millennial Star.

    April 5, 1862, in Vol. 24, was brought up and read, and it was found to have done away with the efficacy of the blood of Christ. President B. Young said he wished to know what the Twelve had to say about it for he had a good deal to say about it. If this doctrine as preached by A. Lyman
    and some by O. Pratt be preached and published as the doctrine of the Church and not contradicted by us, it would not be long before there would be schisms in the Church. This doctrine as preached in this sermon is false doctrine. If we do not believe that it was necessary for Christ to shed his blood to save the world, where is our Church? It is nothing. This does not set well upon my feelings. It is grievous to me to have the Apostles teach false doctrines. Now if the Twelve will sit down quietly and not contradict such doctrine, are they justified? No, they are not.

    January 21, 1867: We held a meeting in the evening as a Quorum of the 12 Apostles to examine into the subject of Amasa Lyman’s teaching false doctrine and publishing it to the world. He had virtually done away with the blood of Christ, that the blood of Christ was not necessary for the salvation of man. The Quorum of the Twelve were horrified at the idea that any one of the Twelve Apostles should teach such a doctrine. After Amasa Lyman was interrogated upon the subject and said those had been his sentiments, W. Woodruff made the first speech and all the Quorum followed and they spoke in very strong terms…. When the Twelve got through speaking, Amasa Lyman wept like a child and asked forgiveness. We then all went into President Young’s office and conversed with him. He felt as the Twelve did upon the subject, only more so, and require Brother Lyman to publish his confession and make it as public as he had his false doctrine.”

    These are but a few, from quickly scanning through Woodruff’s journals. But there is more. John A. Widtsoe in the preface to Discourses of Brigham Young says,

    “This book was made possible because Brigham Young secured stenographic reports of his addresses… All that he said was recorded…. The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so FAITHFULLY AND FULLY PRESERVED… The corrections for the printer, as shown by existing manuscripts, were few and of MINOR consequence.

  12. grindael says:

    And who was the chief stenographer? George Watt. In his Book, The Mormon Passage of George Watt (researched by the Mormon author Ronald G. Watt for 30 years, published in 2009), who writes:

    “When Watt suggested to Brigham Young that he publish a journal of sermons from which Watt could receive his salary, Young and Richards agreed. The Journal of Discourses ensured that all Mormons and even non-Mormons would know what the Lord wanted through the speeches of his representative, Brigham Young. From then on, Watt had a permanent desk in the president’s office and the Tabernacle, taking down the speeches in his SWIFT, curious symbols.”

    “On the first day of the new year, [1852] Watt also began teaching a class in Pitman shorthand. His students included Brigham Young, Thomas Bullock, Thomas W. Ellerbeck, William C. Staines, Nathaniel H. Felt, Albert Carrington, and Daniel Wells, some of the most influential men in Salt Lake City. He probably received a dollar from each student. To prepare for this course, Watt wrote and published his own exercise book, a shortened version of the Pitman manual. He included within it instructions in phonography and some lessons. Young began to practice shortly after his first lesson, and on
    January 5, he spent all day with his shorthand studies. (pages 126-7)

    So Young, and others were very familiar with Watts and his process, and had full confidence in his abilities, not only that, he taught it to others, who used it to transcribe those sermons, that Widtsoe and others KNEW were accurate, and approved. As R. Watt elaborates,

    “Watt’s potential employment must have been on the mind of Brigham Young. Finally, Watt wrote a letter to Young early in May 1853. He suggested that he be allowed to prepare “a few of your sermons which have not yet been in print with Elder P. P. Pratt’s two discourses at the conference on the spirit world and birthright to send to England for publication in the form of a magazine of about 150 or 200 pages to sell.” He suggested that part of the profit go to satisfy his economic necessities and the rest be used for Young’s purposes. Almost immediately his suggestion brought assent from the members of the First Presidency. It would enable Brigham Young and the First Presidency to have the written word to send to the members of the church and the missionaries.

    The next day Young notified Watt of the First Presidency’s agreement, and Watt began transcribing and editing sermons. On May 25 and 26, YOUNG SPENT MOST OF HIS TIME EXAMINING THE WRITTEN DISCOURSES. On June 1, 1853, the First Presidency officially granted Watt the privilege of preparing and publishing Young’s discourses in magazine-LIKE form, recognizing that “Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to ACQUIRE THE ART of reporting in Phonography which he has FAITHFULLY and fully accomplished.” Since publication would be less expensive in England, the sermons were to be sent to Liverpool as Watt had suggested. All the profits from the venture would go to Watt, who would also take care of all the costs. The First Presidency encouraged all church members to purchase the journal for Elder Watt’s benefit. Watt now had a permanent income and a place of employment.

    More importantly for the church, the Journal of Discourses was a watershed, essentially the beginnings of a worldwide publication. Even though the Journal of Discourses was a private venture, it was an OFFICIAL CHURCH PUBLICATION and the most important source of President Young’s and other church authorities’ sermons. Watt also joined OTHER CLERKS in the First Presidency’s office. Albert Carrington was Brigham Young’s clerk and attended to his correspondence. Thomas Bullock, an early convert from England, was also there.” (pages 133-34)

    The JOD was an OFFICIAL publication, and was reviewed beforehand by those that gave the talks:

    “In November the Deseret News announced that Watt’s service as a reporter was available not only to the News but anybody who wanted CORRECT reports, and “if the brethren will employ him, and sustain him in his employment, time will prove it a BLESSING to all concerned.” (135)

    “With permission to publish speeches of the church authorities, Watt needed to concentrate on the Journal of Discourses. The process of publishing each volume was laborious. He needed to be at all the meetings, recording the speeches in shorthand. Then, WITH THE HELP OF PRESIDENT YOUNG, he chose the talks that would be transcribed. In the first volume, twenty-six of the fifty-three sermons were by Young. Heber C. Kimball and Parley P. Pratt had the next most sermons published with six each. In the second volume, Brigham Young had composed seventeen of the fifty-six sermons. Young’s sermons were spoken without notes and from memory. The phonographer had to work very hard to keep up with each speaker. Watt grew accustomed to the delivery style and speed of each speaker. If Young was not the first speaker, Watt sometimes did not arrive at the Tabernacle on time, and when he arrived late for the meeting, he slipped into his desk very quietly.

    On July 2, 1854, he noted in his shorthand notes, “Phineas Young spoke but I was too late to report it.” At the same meeting, Young called upon Watt to speak. After he recorded the speeches, Watt transcribed them word for word, spending many hours at his desk. NEXT HE READ THE SERMONS TO THOSE WHO GAVE THEM, AND THEY CORRECTED THEM. Sometimes Thomas Bullock read Watt’s transcribed sermons, and Watt corrected them again. Albert Carrington copy-edited them, and then Watt sent the final collection of sermons by post to Liverpool for publication. The president of the British Mission also wrote a short preface. The sermons FIRST came out in pamphlet, serial form and were sold to church members both in Britain and Utah by subscription. The publication of the Journal of Discourses meant that the sermons of the Mormon leaders were some of the first religious works to be available for potential world consumption. It helped both the missionary effort and membership.” (135-136)

    Here, we see that the sermons were read back to those that gave them, and they were corrected BEFORE they even went into print! Another Mormon Myth that is debunked, that these were ‘off the cuff, sloppy transcriptions, that had many errors’. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. Hence we have this statement by Brigham Young, WITH THE FULL MEANING VERY CLEAR:

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

    Those sermons WERE copied and approved by Young, and even corrected beforehand. So, what have we learned? The JOD is a vehicle of Doctrine. They are ‘as good as scripture’, according to Brigham Young. The Mormon leaders understood the difference about speaking as men, and with the ‘Holy Ghost’. Young was involved in every aspect of what was published by the Church, and was very adept at ferreting out false ‘doctrine’. From the above, we see that any who say they are not Docrine are mistaken, and that what Mormons define as doctrine and scripture is in error. Any who say they are not, are LYING

    “No man or woman is a true member of the Church who does not fully accept the First Vision, just as no man is a Christian who does not accept, first, the fall of Adam, and second, the atonement of Jesus Christ. Any titular Church member who does not accept the First Vision but who continues to pose as a Church member, lacks not only moral courage but intellectual integrity and honor if he does not avow himself an apostate and discontinue going about the Church, and among the youth particularly, as a Churchman, teaching not only lack-faith, but faith-destroying doctrines. He is a true wolf in sheep’s clothing.” –J. Reuben Clark, Jr. 7 July, 1954

    Remember again, what Marion G. Romney told the Church:

    “What we get out of general conference is a build-up of our spirits as we listen to those particular principles and practices of the gospel which the Lord inspires the present leadership of the Church to bring to our attention at the time. He knows why he inspired Brother Joseph F. Merrill to give the talk he just gave. He knows why he inspired the other brethren who have talked in this conference to say what they have said. It is our high privilege to hear, through these men, what the Lord would say if he were here. If we do not agree with what they say, it is because we are out of harmony with the Spirit of the Lord.” (Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1950, p.126)

    Over and over, we have that Mormon Authorities, when they speak before the Church in Conference are giving the “word of the Lord’. The JOD WERE official publications, and were Conference Addresses and qualify as “the word of the Lord.’. Any who say they are not, are LYING.

  13. Mike R says:

    Grindael, I think the reason that we even have to look at this information is because
    today’s Mormons , in order to be more accepting in the Christian community, have had
    deny or downplay the importance of many of the teachings promulgated by their past
    leaders , and no doubt 50-100 years from now this same type of behavior will be
    repeated by those Mormons who will not own up to many of the important doctrines
    that are taught by today’s leadership .

    The doctrine of Christ ? People have a choice , either stick with what the Bible’s teaches
    about Jesus ( and the Father,etc) or accept what Mormon authorities have proceeded
    to mix onto that testimony with their description of Him in their ” latter day ” gospel
    teaching . We all have a sober reminder of how relevant Paul’s warning in 2 Tim 4:3-4
    is for us today , so a decision needs to be made about who to submit to .
    I’ve made my choice , and it’s to anchor my beliefs about Jesus in what the Bible teaches
    about Him , that safe ground for me in these latter days .

  14. Silkworm says:

    MistakenTestimony says:
    August 14, 2013 at 6:26 am

    Silkworm,

    Thanks for admitting that the “LDS religion” and “Christianity” are separate religions.

    I never admitted to this. I used a poor choice of words. I should know better than to do that on this site or on any EV religion site. So from now on I will be careful. I did not miss any point. A few comments back someone, again, mentioned that the LDS were leaving in droves and I did not refer back to that, so my bad. So I put up this information that came from the Internet, which I did not reference, so again my bad.

  15. MistakenTestimony says:

    Silkworm,

    You said, “I never admitted to this. I used a poor choice of words. I should know better than to do that on this site or on any EV religion site. So from now on I will be careful.” I am assuming that you mean that from now on you will be obfuscating any differences between LDS and orthodox Christianity. Allow me to ask this, is the LDS Jesus and the orthodox Christian Jesus superficially different and fundamentally the same, or fundamentally different and superficially the same?

  16. grindael says:

    Mike,

    I’ll be waiting until doomsday to get any coherent reply from the Mormons. So be it. Yes, I can see it now, the grandchildren of our Mormon posters will be telling them they are really quaint to believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon… and that it was only “folklore” invented by Jo.

  17. johnnyboy says:

    @grindael

    Have you ever thought of writing a book about these subjects? I laugh when people think that they can argue when you so clearly present the facts in front of them.

    Your efforts help many of those lurking. Keep up the good work.

  18. Rick B says:

    Johnny boy,
    The Mormons will not allow themselves to be confused with the facts.
    You can lead a mormon to logic, but you cannot make them think.

  19. grindael says:

    Johnny,

    I am writing a book about Adam-God, which is about half finished. But first, I am finishing up a 100 + page article on a discovery I made last year that has to do with one of the foundational incidents in Mormon History. This discovery is something that no one ever thought could really happen, and it did. (It sheds light on an important piece of Mormon History). It gives me hope that other things are out there, that are just waiting to be discovered. I’ll have this out soon, (possibly next week). I have some things up on my blog, Mormonite Musings, but haven’t published an article in a while, because they are all very long, detailed pieces. But I have about half a dozen that will go up during the fall/winter of this year, on The First Vision, The Kinderhook Plates, Joseph Smith and the “Last Days”, and a few others. Stay tuned. ~Johnny (aka grindael)

  20. shematwater says:

    Rick

    You said “Yet you never come on here and say, no, this is what we believe”
    I do this every time I post on this blog, and every time I am ignored so that you can continue with your false accusations and the spreading of false doctrine.

    You said “The Problem shem is this, When the prophets say, This IS SCRIPTURE, or THIS IS DOCTRINE, And you guys dont like it or agree with it, then it is their opinion. Funny how that works.”
    I have never once denied the doctrine or scriptures of the church. The real problem is you keep wanting to claim that which is not doctrine to be such, and then seem to get angry when you are told you are wrong. I accept every doctrine ever taught, and, quite honestly, I accept some of the speculation as well. But when you misrepresent the doctrine and the scripture than I do disagree with what you say.

    You said “According to you, we should never be deceived since our hearts would know if we were being lied to”
    This is not what I said at all. Our hearts can be deceived, and frequently are. However, if we yield to the Holy Spirit than we will not be deceived in any significant way. That is the real truth, and that is what the Bible teaches as well as the Book of Mormon.

    Fifth Monarchy

    Q. Have you prayed and received and answer about all the books other than the BOM that claim to be scripture for example the book of Leviticus or the Gospel of Thomas or the Qur’an?
    A. For some, yes, for others, no. I have prayed about the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon. Once God confirmed their truth then there was no need to pray about the Qur’an, for the simple fact that it contradicts the Bible and Book of Mormon. If those books are true than the Qur’an can’t be true.
    I know people will respond that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, but it doesn’t.
    As to the Gospel of Thomas and other such books, I have not yet had the privilege of reading them, and until I do there is no need to confirm them as true. I will likely read them in the future, and at that time I would pray that God enlighten my mind as to their accuracy.

    Q. Was it necessary to read those other book before you make a determination on their claims.
    A. For most, yes. For those that I already know deny Jesus as being the Christ there is no need, as that conclusion I have sufficient wisdom in myself to reach. The Bible and Book of Mormon I did read first, and I would read any other book claiming to be of early Christian or Jewish origin before I would expect any real answer to my prayers, though I would pray before and after reading them.

    Q. What about the other Mormon scriptures is your testimony regarding the DOC of the same nature and as strong as it is regarding the BOM? If not how can you be sure it is scripture?
    A. Yes it is.

    Q. What about individual parts of the BOM, is your testimony regarding 1st Nephi of the same nature as that regarding Jarom? What about individual sections of the books.
    A. If the entire book is true than all parts are true, so yes, though I do enjoy some sections more than others.

    Q. I find the BOM to be a mixture of good and some very bad doctrine does that mean that I have a partial testimony?
    A. Do you really want an answer?

    You said “I am very curious about how relying only on your own private perceptions of the Holy Spirit’s leading to judge the authenticity of scripture works out in practice.”
    We don’t rely only on our private perceptions. This is a great misunderstanding. To accept it as being true we rely on the testimony of thousands who have witnessed to its authenticity, as well as the Testimony of the Holy Ghost. But to understand the scriptures we rely on many sources, including scholars, historians, the prophets, and a host of others, with help from the Holy Ghost. To rely on one’s own perceptions is a great folly, for “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2 Peter 1: 20). We must rely on all good sources, and then turn to the Lord for the final determination of the meaning.

  21. shematwater says:

    Kate

    I never once mentioned anything about staggering growth rates or retention. I merely pointed out that we are doing fairly well, and the studies you mention do not contradict this. The simple fact is that we would not be building more buildings and organizing more units if the active membership of the church was not expanding.

    Now, I read the link you provided, and it is eight years out of date, and thus its information is no longer accurate. For instance, it gives the average attendance rate in the United States as between 40 and 50 percent. However, in the recent Pew Forum study that I cited it is demonstrated that well over 80% attends at least monthly. Given differences in approach of the studies I think a safe estimate would be more around 70%.
    Besides this the quote you give from Armand Mauss is taken from a news article, and thus it would take some digging to verify its origin. That news article was written twelve years ago, and so the quote itself is at least that old, and maybe older. Thus it also is no longer an accurate indication of the current situation.
    You information is out of date; though I have no doubt it accurate depicted things then. However, it still does not contradict the fact that even then the church was growing steadily, and has continued to do so.

    You said “This is exactly what our Mormon poster do”
    I do not do this, and I agree that it is wrong. I do, however, believe in getting to know the prophets before trying to claim to be the ultimate authority on what they taught. I do not think President Benson ever meant that we are not to understand their personalities, but that we should not attempt to magnify the flaws in an attempt to make them sound more human.

    Old Man

    You said “Oh boy, you really are living in never never land, are you saying that all the women who said exactly that were lying. Are you saying that When Emma caught him at it she was mistaken?”
    I am saying that all these claims are made by a second hand witness and are thus unverifiable as being true. The stories of Emma were not told by Emma, but by someone else making this claim. I have not read a single account that can actually be verified in its accuracy, primary for this reason.

    You said “it might be easier if you gave us, let’s say, 2 prophecies that were fulfilled to the last detail.”
    I could easily do so, and have done so in the past. However, you have ignored everything, twisted his words, and then claimed that falsely what was prophesied and how it wasn’t fulfilled. I am tired of going through this over and over and will not do it again at this time. So, if you want to list just one prophecy, with a reference to when and where it was first spoken and where it was first published, and by whom, then I would be happy to explain to you how it was or will be fulfilled.

    Now, Rick mentions the Temple in Missouri, which is one of the most frequently cited, and thus the most frequently understood. Let us look at that for a moment. If Rick is following the usual pattern he is referring to Doctrine and Covenants 84, in which we read the following

    “1 A revelationof Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high.
    2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
    3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
    4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
    5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.

    Now, people want to claim that this is a prophecy of the Temple being built in Missouri, but a careful examination of the text proves otherwise. Of course, verse one, being merely an introduction to the revelation, is obviously not part of any prophecy. Verses 2-4 speak of the building up of Zion, or New Jerusalem, and are thus a command, not a prophecy. Verse four is God commanding that the city be built by the gathering of the saints as well as a command to built the temple there.
    However, you will note that in verse five it does not specify a particular temple. It says mere “an house.” This is the prophecy, and the only prophecy. What comes before it is not a prophecy, but a command to the saints. The reason this command is given is because a house was to be built to the Lord in that generation. This prophecy was fulfilled when the Kirtland Temple was finished four years and the glory of God rested upon it. A house was built to the Lord in that generation, and a cloud of glory rested upon it, filling it. Every detail of the prophecy was fulfilled just as Joseph Smith recorded it.
    Of course everyone here will still try to argue that it wasn’t, claiming that verse five has to referring back to the Temple mentioned in verse 3 and 4. This has to be the case because if you actually acknowledge that this prophecy was fulfilled you might actually have to consider that everything else you have been saying is also wrong.

  22. Kate says:

    Well Shem, believe what you want. Put your head in the sand if you want. The truth is, until your church is actually HONEST AND FORTHCOMING with numbers no one will ever know the entire truth. See your church doesn’t tell the truth, it’s dishonest and misleading. Why would they want to hide numbers? That speaks volumes. What harm does it do to put up church numbers openly like the Seventh Day Adventists? As I said before, the numbers game the LDS play are RIDICULOUS. So that aside, I will take your GA’s word over yours. He was asked (in 2012) if members are leaving in droves and he said he is aware of it and he was speaking for the 15 men above him that are aware of it and they do care. He also told Reuters times have changed and “attrition has accelerated in the last five or 10 years.” So what I linked to may be outdated, but according to your own GA, it’s gotten worse since then. That’s enough confirmation for me. You have a really hard time believing your leaders or taking them at their word. You show this time and time again.
    My community is 99% LDS so please tell me why they recently had to consolidate wards. They had to combine 1st and 5th together and 3rd and 4th together because they don’t have enough active members to fill all 5 wards anymore. They completely eliminated an entire ward that has always been here! Yep, growing by leaps and bounds. Oh and by the way, we have more people living here now than just 10 years ago.

    “I do not think President Benson ever meant that we are not to understand their personalities, but that we should not attempt to magnify the flaws in an attempt to make them sound more human.”

    You can’t speak for Ezra Taft Benson or what he meant. He spoke for himself and he said it plainly. I will take him at his word, thanks though.

  23. Kate says:

    My last post may be confusing. The church here split 2nd ward and combined them with the others. 2nd ward was completely eliminated.

  24. falcon says:

    Well Shem,
    I continue to pray for you as well as Alex, FOF and a seldom heard from Ralph.
    I guess the Lord has laid the four of you on my heart.

    The former Mormons who left here, obviously had some very good reasons for cutting-out. They have told us at least part of their stories and if the reason they left was because someone offended them, my guess it was probably Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and various other leaders who make up the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.
    Shooting straight means telling the truth and being forthright. But let’s face it. It would be impossible for Mormon leaders to really be honest regarding the history and doctrines of Mormonism.
    In a rare honest moment, one of the current heads admitted that they were losing members at it had set off alarm bells. So why are people leaving? Current Mormons would say that their testimony wasn’t strong enough. I’d say that’s very true if “strong enough” means being able to ignore the obvious facts about Mormonism.
    I sense that all of our former Mormon posters had a strong testimony at one time or were at least willing to go along to get along and not delve into Mormon history, doctrine and practice. I also sense that each of our former Mormons went through some real emotional pain as they confronted their worst fears about Mormonism and found them to be with merit.
    I remember one former Mormon who use to post here telling me that he left the LDS church because he just got sick of trying to defend it. His personal integrity wouldn’t allow him to do it anymore.
    I have a firm conviction that God will draw those to Himself who He has appointed to eternal life. I don’t know how it works but I believe in His sovereign will and His divine plan.

  25. falcon says:

    OOPS! This was a very poorly worded sentence.

    “The former Mormons who left here, obviously had some very good reasons for cutting-out.”

    Try something like: “The former Mormons who post here……………..”

    I just got home from three intensive days of training teachers prior to the start of school and my brain needs chocolate.

  26. falcon says:

    I was thinking about an article someone could write for MC titled “Lies Mormons Tell Themselves”.
    It would probably best be written by one of our former Mormons because they probably have a few inside falsehoods that don’t make it out of the wards but are used for “faith building” exercises among the faithful.
    Anyway, here are some whoopers that we hear, especially on Mormon Coffee.

    *Joseph Smith DID NOT have sex with those women he called wives.
    *Joseph Smith NEVER made a prophetic prediction that didn’t come true.
    *Brigham Young was just speculating when he taught his Adam-God theology.
    *The Utah LDS church is not losing members in large members.

    *The BoM is a true accurate historical account of a lost tribe of Jews who traveled to the Americas in magic boats and became the fore-runners of the American Indians.
    *The BoA is an accurate translation of some ancient parchments; completed by Joseph Smith.
    *What the Utah based LDS church believes and practices is what the first century Christian church believed and practiced.
    *Of all of the 100 or so sects of Mormonism, the Utah LDS have the true Mormon restoration.

    Well I could keep going but I’ll let some of our other posters add to the list.

  27. falcon says:

    Bill McKeever did a great job on debunking Joseph Smith’s story about having the golden plates and being put upon by some nefarious individuals and how he, Smith, had to put the plates under his arm and run away. Well Bill did a little calculation of how much those plates would have weighed and guess what, the feat wouldn’t have been possible.
    Mormons of course in full Joseph Smith fantasy mode, would count it all as another one of the prophets miracles. Actually it makes for great Mormon story telling and is definitely faith promoting. That is of course if you are thinking Mormon.

    One of the all time great Mormon story tellers was Paul Dunn. He would regale Mormon groups, especially the youth, with his fantastic accounts of his life. Mormons are preset by absorbing all of the Joseph Smith’s myths to buy into any story told with great enthusiasm.

    “[Paul H. Dunn told a] tale about his best friend, ‘who died in his arms during a World War II battle, while imploring Dunn to teach America’s youth about patriotism.’ Then there was the riveting account of how God protected him as enemy machine-gun bullets ripped away his
    clothing, gear and helmet without ever touching his skin.’ Another inspirational yarn explained ‘how perseverance and Mormon values led him to play major-league baseball for the St. Louis Cardinals.’ Unfortunately, none of these stories were true. Dunn’s ‘dead’ friend was still alive; only the heel of his boot was ever touched by a bullet; and he never played for the Cardinals.”

    – Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, p. 427

    Some of the stories Dunn told:

    1. “The sole survivor among 11 infantrymen in a 100-yard race against death, during which one burst of machine-gun fire ripped his right boot off, another tore off his ammunition and canteen belt and yet another split his helmet in half – all without wounding him.”

    2. “[Dunn kept] a Japanese prisoner from being butchered by GIs bent on revenge for the torture slayings of American soldiers.”

    3. “[Wrestled] a dynamite pack off a child kamikaze infiltrator, saving himself and the child.”

    4. “Survived being run over by an enemy tank, while others were crushed.”

    5. “One of only six individuals in his 1,000-man combat group who survived a major battle, and was the only one of those six not wounded.”

    – Arizona Republic, February 16, 1991, p. B-9

    “I confess that I have not always been accurate in my public talks and writings.”

    – Paul Dunn, “Official Apologizes for Embellishing Stories,” Washington Times, October 28, 1991

    http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/paulhdunn.htm

    If only we could get other Mormon authorities and prophets to also apologize for being untruthful. We could start with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. But then that would end the fun the LDS have with their peculiar religion.

  28. Kate says:

    Falcon,
    Isn’t it interesting that ex- Mormons don’t know anything g about Mormonism? I love it when active LDS say that about us. I will admit that I know more about the doctrines now than I ever did while LDS. So many LDS are clueless about Masonic temple rituals and what goes on in the temple. Never would that have been discussed in my home. The majority of LDS haven’t actually been through the temple. How many of them would still be LDS if they knew? My own Mother, who’s in her sixties, doesn’t even know and didn’t believe me about secret handshakes. The weirder doctrines are only found in the temple. No wonder they keep those secret. You are right when you say that Mormon scriptures are a poor place to find Mormon doctrines.

  29. falcon says:

    Kate,
    The game in Mormonism, as in all cults or totalitarian regimes, is to control the flow of information. Once that flow is lost then control of the little people starts to erode. We talk often here about how with the internet Mormons can surf around and find just about anything they want regarding Mormonism.
    I would agree with you that it’s quite ironic that Mormons claim that the only people who could possibly know anything about Mormonism, are those active in Mormonism. What I’ve discovered is that what our TBM types are really saying is that the only people who know anything about Mormonism are those who “believe” it. Because, as you know, someone who believes all of the LDS nonsense thinks in a very particular way.
    So “knowing” in Mormon lingo, really means “believing”. That’s why the Mormon testimony is filled with “I Know!” It’s suppose to lend credibility to the testimony without really having to produce any proof. That’s also why the “feelings makes it true” mantra is so important for Mormons.
    I know a lot about Mormonism and hence I don’t believe any of it. What drives Mormons crazy is that I also know a lot about the BoM and I’ve never cracked the cover of the book. They can’t seem to get it through their heads that you can “know” a lot about a particular book and never have read it. What these Mormons want is the “believe” means “know” paradigm to be activated. We have Christian posters here who’ve read the BoM cover to cover several times and even that doesn’t serve as a credible witness regarding what they report about the book.
    That’s the Mormon game. The reader of the BoM only has credibility in knowing if they believe it.
    Now what our Mormon posters don’t seem to process is that I really don’t talk all that much about the BoM except to say that it isn’t an actual history of an actual people. I can figure that out by reading a Cliff Notes summary containing pertinent information or by reading reviews by those who have done an in depth analysis of the book.

    Anyway, I don’t plan on reading it because it drives the Mormon posters nuts and allows me to live rent free in their heads!

  30. shematwater says:

    Kate

    Of course some places are going to be consolidated, but many more are expanding. What is happening in your local community is hardly an indication of the situation throughout the world. I am not basing my opinions on local observation, but on world events.

    As to numbers, the ones you are so fired up about are not really recorded in any way, by any religion that I know of. They are not the numbers that really matter. I recall you siting the Seventh Day Adventists as being so honest and forthright about numbers, but they off nothing that the LDS church doesn’t publish in the May Ensign in the annual Statistical Report. You have no evidence that they are more accurate than we are. Your comparison is thus useless for your purpose.

    Now, as to the fact that more people have left in recent years than before, that does not disprove the fact that more people are joining than are leaving, which is what my point has always been. I have never denied that people are not leaving, only that your exaggerated portrayal of the situation is not accurate.
    (Oh, and how about a reference to go with that GA you mention.)
    You said “You can’t speak for Ezra Taft Benson or what he meant. He spoke for himself and he said it plainly. I will take him at his word, thanks though.”
    I don’t claim to speak for President Benson, as I clearly showed by the word ‘think’ in my last post. However, you don’t seem to take him at his word, but rather to exaggerate his word to fit your needs, which seems very typical of critics here. Look at his words again. He spoke of people trying “to underplay” the spiritual aspects and to “inordinately humanize the prophets…so that their human frailties become more apparent than their spiritual qualities” He is obviously not talking about ignoring their human frailties, but rather placing them in proper perspective.
    We do not exaggerate their frailties, but we do not ignore them either. We seek to understand them that we may better understand the men and their words.

  31. MistakenTestimony says:

    Shem,

    Kinda like how at the latest GC the brethren announced that the number of missionaries increased while the number of baptisms decreased from the year before, which was in the heat of the failed Mormon moment? Kinda like that? Keep rolling, my friend.

  32. falcon says:

    Yea, the LDS church is really kicking it, right? People are joining in unprecedented numbers and no current members are going inactive or resigning. It shouldn’t be long before the LDS church takes over the world.
    Our TBMs do indeed live in the Mormon bubble, a parallel universe were reality is defined by hopes, wishes and dreams.
    Mormonism is a tough sell, especially to get people to the temple level. The LDS is sort of like a religious Free Masonry lodge. That group is also having difficulty with recruitment.
    But all that matters to the TBM is that they are able to convince themselves of what they want to believe.

    I think the below excerpts pretty much summarizes what is going on in the world of the LDS church. It’s very difficult for the true believers to acknowledge it.

    “God is moving in the hearts of the Mormon people, calling them to Him. It’s coming — the decline and fall of the vast Latter Day Saint Empire, and it is crumbling from within.”

    “When the Internet first arrived, many feared it would extend the reach of the Mormon Church, but though their voice is heard, what sounds even louder and longer is the voice of dissent. God is using the Internet to shine an intense light into the dark corners of Mormonism. Search engines like Google are now the nemesis of the Mormon leadership, often leading young people to ask embarrassing questions like, “Why didn’t you tell me Joseph Smith was a polygamist?” Mormons of all ages are leaving, even at the risk of losing their children and grandchildren to the cruel Mormon practice of “shunning” because, unlike their leaders, they cannot live a lie.”

    “ABC 4 News, Salt Lake City, confirms that record numbers are leaving the church, with sociologists placing active membership at the 5 million mark — a record loss of almost 70% of the membership of the Mormon Church. This substantiates the downward trend that apologist Kurt Van Gorden and I noted in The Kingdom of the Cults (2008). Statistics from the site: http://www.whymormonsleave.com pinpoint the top reasons Mormons lose their testimony as I ceased to believe in the church’s doctrine/theology, followed closely by I studied church history and lost my belief, and I lost faith in Joseph Smith.”

    “One anecdotal source posting on YouTube as Gidget Lawrence sums up what countless online Mormon-focused discussion boards are saying, “The LDS Church is definitely losing members in large numbers in Utah. Much of this is due to an influx of evangelical Christians from other states.”

    “Mormonism in Utah stood pretty much uncontested until the ’90s. Now, there are many voices exposing the truth about Mormon history and the heretical teaching of Joseph Smith. People such as the late Walter Martin, Sandra Tanner, Doris Hanson, Bill McKeever, and Shawn McCraney have made a significant impact in the state over the last 20 years.”

    “Years ago, Walter Martin predicted the fall of the Mormon Church would begin from within, saying that “When God destroyed Goliath of Gath, he didn’t do it with the stones. He cut off his head with his own sword. The twitching corpse of Mormon theology will lie there one day because its head was cut off by its own archives.” There is now a daily current of credible information available online to anyone with a question about the truth of Mormonism; secrets once hidden in Mormon archives are finding their way out.”

    “God is using biblical truth, history, and technology to touch the hearts of people. He is using the Sword of the Spirit inside the Mormon Church, and the head of Goliath is within reach.”

    http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2013/05/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-mormon-empire-2448106.html

  33. Kate says:

    Shem,
    http://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/story/Number-of-faithful-Mormons-rapidly-declining/rvih3gOKxEm5om9IYJYnRA.cspx

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-mormonchurch-idUSTRE80T1CM20120131

    “Now, as to the fact that more people have left in recent years than before, that does not disprove the fact that more people are joining than are leaving, which is what my point has always been.”

    Hahaha! You just said numbers aren’t published so how do you KNOW this? Again, until your church is honest no one will ever know, not even you. I will take Marlin Jensen’ s word over yours and I am done beating this dead horse to death. You are simply wrong.

  34. falcon says:

    I guess the rank-and-file Mormons haven’t gotten the memo from the boys who sit in the big chairs in the tall building at LDS HQ in SLC that the church is bleeding members.
    The head honchos appear to be concerned but I suppose they have to put on a brave face for the dues paying members.
    Walter Martin hit it right when he said that the LDS church would die from within. It has been dying. The problem for the LDS church is that they can’t change their history. They can change some of the doctrines and the temple rituals but they’re stuck with their past.

    I think the little book, “Who Moved My Cheese” pretty much captures what is going on in the LDS church and the effects it does and will have on members.

    “Who Moved My Cheese? is the story of four characters living in a “Maze” who face unexpected change when they discover their “Cheese” has disappeared. Sniff and Scurry, who are mice, and Hem and Haw, little people the size of mice, each adapt to change in their “Maze” differently. In fact, one doesn’t adapt at all…”

    Change will come to the LDS church as it attempts to stem the tide of people leaving and the difficulty recruiting new members to the maze. The boys at the top have a real challenge on their hands because they will probably lose at least some members to the FLDS who practice that old time Brigham Young style of Mormonism.
    The bottom line, however, is that the Morg. must keep up their donor base or their cash cow will begin to go hungry.

  35. falcon says:

    See when someone comes to Christ, they come to Christ. That’s it. They aren’t joining a church. They are recognizing that they are separated from God because of their sin and that by putting their faith in Jesus, they receive forgiveness and eternal life.

    Mormonism is a little more complex. In fact that’s one of the factors that causes some Mormons to not “get” Biblical Christianity. The message of salvation through Jesus.
    Mormons place faith in their church, the system that is suppose to save them if they do the proper works to earn their place in what they call the Celestial Kingdom. This is not a Biblical message. In fact Mormon salvation can’t be found in the Bible or the BoM for that matter.
    Without Joseph Smith there is no Mormonism. It wouldn’t exist. It was his religion.

    Those of us who are in Christ Jesus trace our message of salvation back to the first century when Jesus walked the earth. The revelation is found in the Bible. There is nothing to add to it.
    Those who are in Christ are new creatures. All the old passes away. All things are new.

  36. Rick B says:

    Shem,
    Grindael issued you a challenge about Adam God. Despite what you say, I still believe you are a lair and deceiver. I say that because you have been given the truth and reject it over and over. Now tell us plainly, will you take this Adam God challenge with Grinadel? He said you wont, and I believe you wont either. Dont make any excuses, Either say, Yes or no. If you say no, then we figured you would say no and we dont care about excuses as to why you wont. I want lurkers to know, all the LDS here, Shem, Ralph, FoF, Alex, Silkworm and others talk a big game, claim the have the truth, and then run from challenge like this Adam God challenge.

    Just to add something Shem said, He said to me,

    Rick
    You said “Yet you never come on here and say, no, this is what we believe”
    I do this every time I post on this blog, and every time I am ignored so that you can continue with your false accusations and the spreading of false doctrine.

    So now he has the chance to prove once and for all, yet I really believe he wont.

    Then He said to me,

    You said “The Problem shem is this, When the prophets say, This IS SCRIPTURE, or THIS IS DOCTRINE, And you guys dont like it or agree with it, then it is their opinion. Funny how that works.”
    I have never once denied the doctrine or scriptures of the church. The real problem is you keep wanting to claim that which is not doctrine to be such, and then seem to get angry when you are told you are wrong. I accept every doctrine ever taught, and, quite honestly, I accept some of the speculation as well. But when you misrepresent the doctrine and the scripture than I do disagree with what you say.

    This shows he is a liar and he can set us straight because, BY said, that his Adam/God teaching was scripture, and was/is Doctrine, and that our salvation hangs upon knowing this doctrine. So it seems Shem claims he believes Doctrine from the church, but when we show him his prophets said, This is doctrine, He ignores it and refuses to say it is, then makes excuses and says, It was their opinion and we dont really know what they meant. Well he has a chance to prove this, but will he? I doubt it.

  37. falcon says:

    This idea that Brigham Young wasn’t serious about his Adam-God doctrine is foolish. He believed it, he taught it, and Mormons accepted it as revealed truth. The problem is with the Mormon system of determine what is doctrine and what isn’t. We’ve had various Mormons try and convince us of what the process is by which “doctrine” becomes accepted but it’s just more of the Mormon maze of confusion that becomes deceit.
    The Mormon prophets of yore were performing a high wire act without any nets. They fell off the wire continually and subsequent generations are left to explain why their prophets couldn’t balance.

    The main problem is that Mormon prophets have this impression of themselves that they are hearing from God. What they are really hearing from is their own imaginations. That’s why subsequent generations of Mormons are left to clean up their mess.
    Does anyone doubt that Bruce McConkie didn’t believe what he wrote in “Mormon Doctrine” and that Mormons bought that book thinking that it explained what Mormon doctrine is? Cousin Brucie was a leader of the LDS church. But my impression is that the guy was not able to be controlled by the rest of the leadership.
    Sandra Tanner is quoted as saying:
    “I believe the main reason McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” was taken out of print was due to its candid discussion of LDS doctrines that the church is now trying to hide. Such teachings as God once being a man, his wife–Heavenly Mother, and Jesus being the literal, physical son of God are just a few of the doctrines that are being minimized in current manuals. If the LDS Church felt “Mormon Doctrine” presented a faulty compilation of their doctrines, why haven’t they issued an authorized compendium of their beliefs? Mormons often say to me, “That’s not official doctrine” as though there was some place to look up the official teachings. Where is the official systematic theology of Mormonism?”

    This guy does a good job of explaining “McConkie” in three minutes.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abgUDUfIuoY

  38. falcon says:

    This nine minute video explains why this mother was concerned that she would not be reunited with the infant she lost to death. This is another one of those Mormon “doctrines” that I wonder is more Mormon folk doctrine or if it’s actually written down some where and clearly defined.
    The woman’s problem was getting her first husband and then her second husband to do the work necessary in order to secure the family’s position in the Celestial Kingdom. What she says is that she was taught that if the proper work wasn’t done, the deceased infant would be given to a worthy Mormon family if the next world.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X6nPJdytXU

    Is any of this Biblical? Of course not. Was this form of thinking part of what the first century Christian church believed and practiced and was “lost” and needed to be “restored”. Again a big “NO!” it’s just more Mormon fiddle faddle and an attempt to play, “Let’s start a religion”.

  39. Rick B says:

    Shem said

    Our hearts can be deceived, and frequently are. However, if we yield to the Holy Spirit than we will not be deceived in any significant way. That is the real truth, and that is what the Bible teaches as well as the Book of Mormon.

    Here is the problem with this, You LDS believe you have the holy spirit, we Christians also believe that, the Off shoot groups of Mormonism also believe the same thing, and we dont agree at all and believe the other groups are wrong.

    So we clearly all dont believe the others have the Holy Spirit. So this goes back to we need evidence and not a good feeling or praying about truth. The Bible says that even the demons believe yet they tremble, They know who God is, yet they are not and will not be saved.

    The Bible also says as I keep pointing out, Jesus says, Many will come to me and say, Lord, Lord, Did we not cast out demons in your Name? Did we not do these works in your Name? and many other things in Your Name? These people believe they have the Holy Spirit, because they believe they did many GOOD WORKS in the name of Jesus. But He claims they are evil and He never knew them.

  40. shematwater says:

    Rick

    Actually, I never read the challenge because I have been ignoring Grindael as best as I can. I have no desire to enter into another pointless contention with him where he mines quotes and then misrepresents them; then he ignores everything I say, even when I am quoting the leaders of the church; and finally accuses me of not answering him. I find it tedious and at times mentally sickening. Yes, I have engaged him at times in the past, but I will not do so now.

    I will say that if someone else wishes to repeat the challenge I may accept though I may not. I am not sure at this point as I really don’t know what the challenge is. I will say that I would likely not accept it from Falcon, and there is a good chance I would not accept it from you, for the same reason I wouldn’t accept it from Grindael. Now, MJP, Mistaken, or John I am much more likely to engage in such a topic with because they are generally much better behaved.

  41. Rick B says:

    Shem, Your a coward and a joke, You claim we mine quotes, yet it is quotes from your leaders and prophets, if you cannot handle the truth, then why are you here? Your here to keep trying to deceive and bring as many people to hell with you all in service of your father.

  42. MistakenTestimony says:

    Rick B said that with confidence. Christ has already secured His victory over all deception at the cross.

  43. Rick B says:

    Shem said

    I have been ignoring Grindael as best as I can.

    You ignore him and pretty much all of us, not because we mine quotes as you say, but because you cannot defend the lies. You have no response to all the confusion your leaders stated.

    For example, You claim that if it is doctrine of your church you believe it and wont deny it. Yet it was your prophet who said, It was scripture and doctrine that Adam was God. He also said that we must hear it, for our salvation hangs upon it. Yet despite him saying that, you claim it is not doctrine and was his opinion, but thats all you can do, is state your opinion and cannot prove otherwise.

    Then you admit, God told JS to practice polygamy, And your leaders claimed it was to be that way forever, and we would be DAMNED if we did not continue in it, and we might as well deny Mormonism to deny polygamy. Yet when the government presses the church to stop, they then claim it was revelation of God. Yet you have no good reason why God would claim it is everlasting, then less than 60 years later God changes His mind (supposedly).

    Blacks in the priesthood was another that was to be forever and never end under penalty of death.
    Then you guys claim and pride yourselves on Revelation from God, yet the one thing you never hear from God, is answers from God about the whys to these issues. The only types of responses we hear are, Gods not ready to tell us, milk before meat, or His ways are not are ways.

    Yet the Bible says, God is not the author of confusion, satan is, and all these issues are nothing but confusion and I would think if God really cares and loves us, He would speak to the prophet and set everyone straight once and for all. But you know that will never happen since your following a false prophet.

  44. grindael says:

    Actually, I never read the challenge because I have been ignoring Grindael as best as I can. I have no desire to enter into another pointless contention with him where he mines quotes and then misrepresents them; then he ignores everything I say, even when I am quoting the leaders of the church; and finally accuses me of not answering him. I find it tedious and at times mentally sickening. Yes, I have engaged him at times in the past, but I will not do so now.

    As a dog returns to its vomit,
    so fools repeat their folly.
    ~Proverbs 26:11

  45. grindael says:

    Rick,

    Of course answering Mormons with 4 and 5 pages of quotes to back up what you say is “mining quotes”. What else can they say? They simply won’t believe the truth.

    23 Like a coating of silver dross on earthenware
    are fervent lips with an evil heart.
    24 Enemies disguise themselves with their lips,
    but in their hearts they harbor deceit.
    25 Though their speech is charming, do not believe them,
    for seven abominations fill their hearts.
    26 Their malice may be concealed by deception,
    but their wickedness will be exposed in the assembly.

    ~Proverbs 26

  46. Kate says:

    Rick,

    One thing to think about, the Mormon god didn’t give a revelation to give the Blacks the priesthood. Spencer Kimball went into the temple with his group of higher ups and prayed to see if they could put an end to no Blacks in the priesthood. They all got a warm fuzzy feeling and made a declaration. I wonder if their warm fuzzy feeling was actually wrong? You can talk yourself into feeling what you want to be true. They wanted the No Blacks revelation to end so they didn’t lose their tax exempt status and so BYU could continue in sports. In my mind a “revelation” trumps a “declaration.”

    Shem,
    If I were in your position, I would have to ignore grindael too. He throws out too much evidence and I wouldn’t be able to face that either. He buries all of you Mormons with words from your own prophets and leaders, so technically, it’s your own prophets and leaders that are proving you wrong.

  47. shematwater says:

    Rick

    Isn’t it fun.

    Actually, as you are want to do, you not only misrepresent the quotes of our leaders, but you lie concerning what I have said. You call me a coward because I choose not to engage in a debate with a person who has lied in almost every thread he has posted in and ignored everything I have said in the past. All you have ever been able to do is state your opinion that I am wrong, and yet your own arrogance and delusion forces you to claim that your opinion is proven truth.

    Let us check a few things here:

    You said “You claim we mine quotes, yet it is quotes from your leaders and prophets”

    Of course it is, but what does that prove. Quote mining means that you take as many quotes as you can from a legitimate source, give them out of context, and then proceed to misrepresent them by claiming that you are the final authority in understanding what the men meant. This is what you do, and I have, on countless ocasions showed you just how ignorant you are and how what you claim does not match what is actually said in the quotes you give. Yet you ignore me and then lie about what I said.

    You said “Yet it was your prophet who said, It was scripture and doctrine that Adam was God.”

    I know the quotes very well, and those in which he was declaring doctrine I accept completely and without reservation. The problem is that in your delisions and lieing you try to claim as doctrine what he never claimed as doctrine. You twist his words and sometimes out right lie in order to claim your foolishness is correct. What you say is what I reject, not what the prophets have said. You really need to step out of your own self deception and try to understand this distinction.

    You said “Then you admit, God told JS to practice polygamy, And your leaders claimed it was to be that way forever, and we would be DAMNED if we did not continue in it, and we might as well deny Mormonism to deny polygamy.”

    Here is a good example of your lies in regards to me, as I never once admitted this. I admit God commanded Joseph Smith, and I admit that to deny the doctrine is to deny the gospel. However, it was never taught that it would be that way forever, or that we would be damned if we did not always practice it. You have demonstrated your willingness to lie and twist meaning in order to deceive others. Why should I engage in any kind of discussion with you?

    Let us just leave it at these prime examples, though if I went back through all the threads I posted on I am confident that I could fill several pages with all the lies and misrepresentations you have made over time.
    I have always said that I am willing to engage in a discussion with anyone who is willing to do so in a polite and honest manner. You, Grindael, Falcon, and many others have proven that you cannot be civil in your discourse, nor can you be honest in words. You have filled neither of the conditions of discussion that will enduce me into a discussion with you.

    Kate

    What Grindael does does not prove anything. His tactics are to post as much as he can in an attempt to overwelm, not prove anything. He can then claim that he has proven us wrong because we simply lack the desire to sift through everything he says, varify its accuracy, read in context to understand its meaning, and then reply point by point to his long list of lies and misrepresentation. He is the king of quote mining, and everyone here seems to think the more a person babbles the smarter they are.
    To put it another way, just because a person brings fifty guns to the contest, that does not mean he is a better shot than the man who brings only one.

    Let me give a challenge to Grindael. Give us one quote, and then discuss that quote in depth. After that quote is discussed, then let us look at another. I have serious doubts that Grindael could actually engage in a discussion in this manner, as he relies so heavily on overwleming tactics rather than actually proving anything.

  48. Kate says:

    Shem,

    The fact is, your own prophets and leaders have proven you wrong over and over. You generally state your own opinion and you refuse to take your prophets at their word. You twist their words trying to convince us that what they said isn’t actually what they meant. We take your prophets at their word, you seem unable to do this. Sometimes a duck really is a duck.

  49. grindael says:

    What Grindael does does not prove anything. His tactics are to post as much as he can in an attempt to overwelm, not prove anything. He can then claim that he has proven us wrong because we simply lack the desire to sift through everything he says, varify its accuracy, read in context to understand its meaning, and then reply point by point to his long list of lies and misrepresentation. He is the king of quote mining, and everyone here seems to think the more a person babbles the smarter they are. To put it another way, just because a person brings fifty guns to the contest, that does not mean he is a better shot than the man who brings only one.

    Let me give a challenge to Grindael. Give us one quote, and then discuss that quote in depth. After that quote is discussed, then let us look at another. I have serious doubts that Grindael could actually engage in a discussion in this manner, as he relies so heavily on overwleming tactics rather than actually proving anything.

    Of course, Shem does not do this himself. He goes on and on with long posts also. You see what he is doing here. If you quote only one quote, it isn’t enough, if you quote many, it’s too arduous and intricate for him to take the time to try and comprehend. There is no pleasing such people. This is simply a game he plays, based on Mormon Bubble denial. This is the Mormon Straw Man called the “shotgun” analogy. (But that actually applies to putting different topics in an answer not multiple quotes that prove context, but he is not intelligent enough to figure out what his analogy really means). Any real historian would laugh at you that one quote is good enough to prove something. It’s a completely ridiculous argument. Shem can’t handle multiple quotes, because it is actually devastating to his arguments. He know that doing so puts something in context and perspective. Yet, we see Shem do this himself time after time. He picks and chooses who he will answer this way, though, and stays away from me because he knows he has no answers for me. I TOLD YOU HE WOULD DO THIS. It proves he knows nothing about Adam God, and won’t engage on it. Thanks Shem, for proving me right…. again. **Quack!**

  50. Rick B says:

    I want to post this for all your lurkers out their that really want to believe Shem is the honet man he claims, Here are his words He said

    Here is a good example of your lies in regards to me, as I never once admitted this. I admit God commanded Joseph Smith, and I admit that to deny the doctrine is to deny the gospel. However, it was never taught that it would be that way forever, or that we would be damned if we did not always practice it

    Did his leaders really say this or Not? He will claim No they did not, I claim they did, So lets see what they said shall we.

    “Some quietly listen to those who speak against the Lord’s servants, against his annointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have a half dozen devils with them all the time. YOU MIGHT AS WELL DENY “MORMONISM,” AND TURN AWAY FROM IT, AS TO OPPOSE THE PLURALITY OF WIVES. Let the presidency of this church, and the twelve apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 203)

    I want people to notice it clearly says, Some quietly listen to those who speak against the Lord’s servants, against his annointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed.

    Polgamy was given as a principle from God, and Gods anoited.

    Notice it also says

    Let the presidency of this church, and the twelve apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned.”

    It clearly says, it is doctrine and we would be damned if we oppose it. Now what was that, that shem said ? O-yea, Shem said

    However, it was never taught that it would be that way forever, or that we would be damned if we did not always practice it.

    Now lets add more shall we?

    D and C 132, verses 1 and 2; I will start on 3. “Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. 4. For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. I would like to point out some things here. First off, in D and C 1:14 it says we must obey the Lord, the apostles, and the prophets or we will be cut off.

    Notice it says, It is an EVERLASTING COVENANT, And if we reject it we cannot be permited to enter Gods Glory.

    So Lurkers, Tell me, Did I lie? or did Shem lie? I bet Shem will come back and claim I dont know what I am talking about no matter what.

Leave a Reply