From a sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Taking Hold of God,” delivered October 7, 1877:
In the present age, if any man can talk well, he will get a following whatever he may teach. I am astounded at some professors who can hear this man, today, and that man the next, though the two are diametrically opposed. Surely there is some difference between truth and error. Surely mere cleverness cannot neutralize false doctrine.
Our forefathers discerned between things that differed and when false doctrine came before them they cast it out, notwithstanding the eloquence of its advocate. I do not want you to be bigots. God deliver us from their bitter spirit, but I do want you to be sound Believers. There is a great difference between obstinate bigotry and a decided maintenance of that which we have believed. After all, what is the chaff to the wheat? There is a difference between the doctrines of men and the teachings of the Lord. No lie is of the truth. Garnish it as you may, it is still a lie. Oh to be rooted and grounded and built up in Christ! One of the most desirable things in this fickle age is to see around the minister of Christ a people who know the truth, and feel that the truth binds them fast to their God.
———
“His winnowing fork is in his hand,
and he will clear his threshing floor
and gather his wheat into the barn,
but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
Matthew 3:12
I’d add that Shem has argued that Young did not say that Adam is God. He’s tried to differentiate Young’s statement on Adam to show that he really didn’t mean that Adam is the god we are to worship. He’s said Adam is our god, the organizer, the stake president, of this earth, but not really the god we are to worship.
This is a very different point than personal belief/binding church doctrine.
I’m left, again, more confused than before concerning couple LDS approaches to theology. First, what precisely is binding church doctrine? What, exactly, does a doctrine that is binding mean to a believer? Does it mean they have to accept it to be an LDS? Or something else? Second, what role does guessing (using Shem’s words on Young) by a prophet play in the broader scheme of defining binding doctrine? This is in a perfect church, a church that cannot lead its people astray. Yet, here is a prophet guessing on a point of revelation, and if wrong, could lead his people astray…
MJP,
You will get no satisfaction on those points. For example, take what they just did with the new heading for the Priesthood to Blacks “revelation”. They put right in there, that Mormon “prophets” are too stupid to figure out where that doctrine came from:
That is from the new “inspired” heading for Official Declaration 2. This sums up Mormon “prophets” nicely. They have “no clear insights” into anything, and it is in their best interest to keep obfuscating their own roles in the world. They are nothing but Corporate Managers. For them, that is a step up from “prophet, seer & revelator”, because that job title doesn’t pay well.
I suppose it is good that I am not looking for satisfaction, and I don’t expect to find satisfactory answers because I don’t think they exist.
The whole program takes a very relativistic approach to dealing with matters. About the only things they seem quick to stand up for are Joseph Smith, and that they follow a Jesus Christ who lived about 2000 years ago in Israel. You might throw in the restored gospel, and the power of personal revelation, too. Otherwise, they are very willing to manipulate and alter the plain words of its previous leaders.
Shem, you said , ” You aren’t really paying attention to what I am saying if you actually think
you have accurately described anything I have said . ”
Actually I have accurately described what you have said . It is you that is not paying enough
attention what Brigham Young and officers who served with him have said , and as a result you
not understanding how serious of doctrinal error the Adam-God doctrine is . You say personal
belief is not the same thing as binding church doctrine , the two must be separated . But that is
really not the main issue because a false prophet is one who believes and teaches false doctrine
to his followers , it does not matter if none or all of his flock accepts his teaching because he is
still a false teacher/prophet . Now , Brigham’s new doctrinal revealment about Adam has
been labeled as false doctrine by even some Mormon authorities not to long ago . This is not
that difficult to understand . This doctrine is a terrible doctrine repeatedly promulgated by
the alleged leader of Jesus’ church in these last days , and testified to by those other officers
under him . Until Mormons like you can do the right thing and admit that Brigham Young taught
false doctrine , that he caused many under his care to follow him in embracing his doctrine
then non-LDS will always keep bringing it up . Why would we trust and respect your current
leaders when they won’t stand for truth and admit Young was guilty of believing and teaching
egregious doctrine ?
And just so you know , what you said in the last sentence in your reply to me is not completely
accurate . You’ll find the answer to your accusation by reading through the information that
grindael provided , I did .
I submit that you can’t see the truth of this issue because you’re to intent on reading your own
ideas into what Brigham taught in an attempt to rescue him from being a false prophet .
It’s my testimony to you that what Brigham taught was wrong , he drifted into error and
refused correction by those who served beside him . Brigham Young was a false prophet .
Mike
No leader of the church has ever said that Brigham Young taught false doctrine. President Kimbal said that the meaning that people like you and Grindael give to his words is a false meaning, and I agree. Elder McConkie at one time said that some statements of Brigham Young appear to contradict other statements by Brigham Young, and so we have the task of determining which statements to accept.
Also, just because Brigham Young taught what he believed does not make him a false prophet, for the simple fact that he made it clear that this was his belief and that the saints needed concern themselves with it as it was not intended to be binding on them. As it was a personal belief, and stated to be such, I really don’t care how many people agreed with him or not, and neither did he.
As to everything that Grindael said, I have read most of it, and I have shown just how inaccurate he really is in regards to Brigham Young. He has done nothing to prove that Brigham Young ever intended his thoughts on the matter to be of any importance, and so for for you or Grindael to add that qualification to his words is wrong and dishonest.
I submit to you that you are so blinded by your prejudice and bias against the LDS that you are only able to see that which supports these ideas and allows you to remain in your ignorant and blind state. Brigham Young was a great man and a great prophet, and will stand with the great men of Christ when he returns in his glory. This is my testimony, as revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, which witness cannot be impeached or denied.
MJP
Binding Church doctrine are those points of truth that must be accepted by the faithful if they are to expect the reward of eternal glory. They are the doctrines contained in the Standard Works. There is no doctrine that I have ever heard, which is binding on the saints, that cannot be taught and supported through a study of the Standard Works. If a doctrine cannot be supported in this way it is not a binding doctrine. There is nothing simpler.
The personal beliefs of Brigham Young regarding Adam cannot be directly supported or taught through the standard works, and thus are not binding doctrine.
As to the roll of guessing in defining doctrine, it plays no roll. A guess is not nor has it ever been doctrine. When a person guesses we are free to agree or disagree as we choose and doesn’t matter which. When you wish to define doctrine the first step is to remove or ignore all guesses, and then work with whatever is left.
Now, I agree that you will never get satisfaction, because you have just stated that you don’t think it is possible, and thus you have already decided to be dissatisfied with everything concerning the gospel. Unless you believe satisfaction is possible you will never find it.
As to relativity, I have stated few things in a relativistic way, and there are few things in the gospel that are relative. What is relative is the final rewards we will receive, which are relative to our diligence in this life. The difficulty is that you want everything to be based off your conceptions and doctrine, and anything that is not based on that is labeled as relative.
Funny how Shem keeps repeating this BUT NEVER SHOWS ANY EVIDENCE. This is just bubble talk, pure and simple. Until Shem coughs up actual evidence, he is just spitting in the wind.
Just so that people understand the nature of evidence and proof, let me enlighten them.
It is impossible to prove a negative. What this means is that no one can prove that something does not exist, or that something is false. What can be proven is something that is true or does exist. This must be fully understood, and should be understood by anyone who claims to have proof that something is true or not, and is something that any competent scientist, statistition, or any other profesional with attest to.
I mention this for one very simple reason. Grindael is attempting to prove a positive in his claim that Brigham Young taught…etc. I cannot prove that he did not teach it, because that is a negative statement and thus is unprovable. Thus the burden of proof is on Grindael, not me. What I have done, and continue to do, is to show how he has failed to meet that burben by any reliable or accurate measure.
So, when Grindael claims that I have no proof of what Brigham Young did not teach, he is being very accurate. However, he has not proven what he claims to prove, and that is all that is necessary for me.
Unfortunately, I have proven my claims, on many threads that you have not refuted nor provided the evidence to back up. Nice try, but you have spit all over your face. You have proven nothing, and shown to all that you will not, and can not prove that Brigham Young did not teach that Adam was God the Father of the spirits of Man. Thanks Shem, for proving me right.
Shem, sorry but you’ve said nothing that is convincing . Your testimony about this did’nt
come from the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit does’nt condone false prophets . Now I don’t
doubt that you experienced some internal feeling but it was of your own heart . Your motive I
won’t judge , but your “witness” that Brigham Young was a great prophet did’nt come from the
Holy Spirit .
Now you’re wrong on several comments you made in your last post . First , Apostle McConkie
did admit that Brigham Young erred in some of his teachings about Adam —- doctrinal error ,
i.e. he taught false doctrine .
Secondly, your statement : ” Also, just because Brigham Young taught what he believed does
not make him a false prophet ….” A prophet who believes and teaches false doctrine is a
false prophet/teacher , it does’nt matter if anyone in his flock accepts his new aberrant
teaching or not because that does not negate the fact that what he believes ( and taught ) is
wrong . What Brigham Young taught about Adam was wrong , and he influenced others to
embrace his new doctrinal revealment . That’s what false prophets are good at doing .
You accuse grindael and me of dishonesty for allegedly adding qualifications to Brigham
Young’s words . I think that the best response to that accusation is to remind you of the
saying , ” the pot calling the kettle black ” .
It’s plain that you are just spinning your wheels with this issue . Your efforts to try and rescue
Brigham Young from being seen as a false prophet , are futile . So do the right thing and stand for
truth . You don’t need the prophets of Mormonism to have a saving relationship with God .
Mike
You are missing the entire point and thus showing that you really don’t know what a prophet is.
Brigham Young believed sertain things, and he taught those things as his own belief, and not as the doctrine of the church. Doing this does not make him a false prophet because he did not claim them to be from God, but from himself. If he had claimed them to be from God than you would have a case, but you don’t because he never did.
I have never once denied that Brigham Young believed these things, nor have I denied that he spoke on them and expounded that belief to the saints. But in every instance when his purpose was to speak on these matters he clearly indicated that it was his own thoughts and that it didn’t matter if we agreed or not, as it would have no direct effect on our salvation.
I have pointed this out on more than one occassion. I have shown where he stated that it was his opinion that he had reasoned these things out himself. I have shown that he stated directly that none of it really matter, as he was merely gratifying his own desire to speak about it, as well as the curiosity of others. These statements are ignored by you and white washed by Grindeal.
Brigham Young was a great prophet, and I really don’t care how many times or how eloquently you deny it. You will see him on the right hand of Christ when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and maybe then you will acknowledge this fact.
You have shown no such thing, only that you don’t know how to spell my name. As a matter of fact, I’ve proven you totally wrong, but you have ignored it and not responded to it, AGAIN. All that you do is repeat the same old lines over and over again that mean nothing. So really, Shem, go crawl back into your bubble, and stop wasting our time with your lame opinions, they really show how little you know about Mormonism. And while you are at it, think on this discourse by Brigham Young, who taught in it that Adam was indeed God and said it was a REVELATION from God to him: (so whether you or anyone else accept it or not makes no difference at all):
There are no “I reckon’s” or anything else that can be construed by the ignorant as opinion in this discourse. He also had it published to the world.
Shem, You said : ” you are missing the point and thus showing that you really don’t know
what a prophet is . ”
Actually , it is you that is missing the point with this issue . A prophet is a teacher . They teach
their followers . What Brigham Young taught about Adam was false doctrine . Even if no one
in the church had joined him in his heresy he still is guilty of being a false teacher/prophet .
Young taught that Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind , you agreed he believed and
proceeded to teach this . But this has been declared to be erroneous doctrine by later Mormon
authorities .
The problem with your reasoning is that you are pulling statements by Young out of their
context and time frame in an effort to prove he was only giving his opinion , that he never
considered it as being newly revealed spiritual truth to him by God etc.
Not only did he testify that this was doctrine , but those officers under him testified to that fact
as well . They joined their leader and agreed this doctrine was from God . In fact when Orson
Pratt disagreed with Young he stated he had’nt gotten revelation confirming it was correct
doctrine , so he opposed it being taught . Some of his fellow officers told Pratt to get revelation
on it , in doing so he would then know that what Young believed and taught was indeed truth
from God .
Shem , your bias against objectively evaluating this doctrine is evident . You want me to take
your testimony , your inner witness about this . Sorry , but the testimony and inner witness
of Brigham Young and those officers who served with him that this doctrine was REVEALED
to them by God , trumps yours .
Brigham Young was a false prophet . He won’t be at the right hand of Jesus when He comes
in His glory .
Now this thread is fading , so this topic can be moved to the ” Adam God Challenge ” thread.