Christ According To The Mormons

[DeepShadow]

It just makes much more sense to rely instead, when dealing with a revealed religion like Mormonism to accept as doctrine what has been

Revealed.

By Prophets(tm).

I can understand the temptation to simplify things that way, but that's what's causing the problem. Hopefully this press release will shed some light on the matter. Standard works, official declarations and proclamations. That's it.

Cuts down on the homework, no?

 

[Sola'lor]

I can understand the temptation to simplify things that way, but that's what's causing the problem. Hopefully this press release will shed some light on the matter. Standard works, official declarations and proclamations. That's it.

Cuts down on the homework, no?

So teaching teaching manuals(i.e. Gospel Princples) aren't doctrine? Or should it be taken more that teaching manuals CONTAIN doctrine but aren't doctrine themselves.

 

[Katzpur]

Cuts down on the homework, no?

Well, it would cut down on the homework if the point of the homework was to gain an understanding. When I read stuff like this...

Katzpur, perhaps there is no one in existence who does understand your own doctrine well enough to make a valid judgment on the matter. Unless you would all consider rewriting and streamlining your ever-changing doctrine into a one line disclaimer: "Our doctrine is: the last thing we have been told. Period."

...my first inclination is to think, "Well, the better part of 13 million people do understand LDS doctrine. Many of them are well-educated and well-read, but many of them aren't. LDS doctrine is not at all difficult to understand for anyone who is so inclined. It's not rocket science, but it does require sincerity of purpose."

 

[Sola'lor]

I was going to make acomment but it would probably be misunderstood so I'll leave it out. It was about mordern revelation.

 

[Katzpur]

So teaching teaching manuals(i.e. Gospel Princples) aren't doctrine? Or should it be taken more that teaching manuals CONTAIN doctrine but aren't doctrine themselves.

I don't believe that they would be considered "doctrine" in the sense that the Standard Works are doctrine. I don't believe that you would find anything in the teaching manuals that contradicts scripture. If you did, that would be cause for concern. You've got to remember that the teaching manuals are essentially nothing more than statements made by the General Authorities on a variety of subjects. When these statements clarify what is found in the scriptures, they can be useful in helping us to understand doctrine. But, as has been proven in this thread, when a person wants to read something into those statements that distorts their meaning, there is only one way in which to resolve the issue and that is by an appeal to the scriptures themselves.

 

[DeepShadow]

So teaching teaching manuals(i.e. Gospel Princples) aren't doctrine? Or should it be taken more that teaching manuals CONTAIN doctrine but aren't doctrine themselves.

The latter. They are attempts to explain doctrine, but not doctrine themselves.

 

[!Fluffy!]

!Fluffy!, let me ask you something. If someone (let's say an atheist, Jew or *gasp* even a Muslim) decided to tell you what you believed and that you couldn't possibly explain it to them and that you were wrong, and that you have no clue what you are talking about in regards to your Christian faith, wouldn't you be the least bit offended?

Stop trying to speak for us.

We are members of our Church, we know our doctrine, you don't.

Respond to your prophets then please, as all I have done is quote them. What do you think of their words? Why do you agree or disagree? Why would I believe you, instead of them? No one has explained this yet to any satisfaction. It seems you would rather deny than accept your own prophets' statements, and then get angry at me over what THEY said. I find that odd.

None of you bothers to read or evaluate your own literature or history with any intellectual honesty, it seems. And when someone else does it for you at least have the courtesy to respond to what was said and give a good reason for your disagreement.

I have done this repeatedly with little response other than "that's not doctrine" or "I've been in the church for X years and never heard that".

You see, for an outsider like me who seems to get varied responses from one end of the spectrum to another when I ask a question about your beliefs - I want the whole truth. Not just a member's opinion. I want to see it in writing, and I want to know the history and context of it. This whole priesthood thing would lead one to believe there is a trusted hierarchy within your church, and prophet presidents sit up there at the top. I believe they speak for the church, whether you do or not.

And if you don't believe they speak for the church, why do you belong to it??

And if you lap up the milk and avoid the meat, that's no one's fault but your own.

--------------------------

As to your other statements if someone of another faith:

decided to tell you what you believed and that you couldn't possibly explain it to them and that you were wrong, and that you have no clue what you are talking about in regards to your Christian faith, wouldn't you be the least bit offended?

No, I would feel ashamed for not being able to explain something that I supposedly believe.

It has to make sense in my head before I believe it in my heart, so I have never had the experience you speak of (the occasional unintelligible troll doesn't really count) or at least not in the way you seem to view it. I am only offended when someone deliberately tries to offend me personally by telling lies. That's an offense.

So Becky, really why would I be offended if someone asks a straightforward question? The Bible tells us to always to be ready to give an account of the hope that is within us, something like that. So I don't shy away from it. Some of those questions have led to the greatest spiritual revelations in my life, and I welcome them. The thing about it is, I was the worst skeptic, the most blatant sinner, a Libertine and a Christ-hater, the meanest atheist in town.

Sometimes the most wonderful thing in the world is to find out you are wrong. And believe me, I have been very very wrong but it was never for lack of curiosity.

I have never been afraid to ask tough questions, so how can I refuse to answer them as well? I know and understand that skeptical point of view, and I had to find out so many of those answers the hard way but I never give up when I have an honest question.

There have been questions it took me YEARS to get a real answer to. Not just "oh, you need to have faith such and such is so" - but real, satisfactory answers that make sense.

It is true, sometimes people have no other motive than to lie or twist The Truth (*gasp*) to suit their own political or hate-driven agenda - in which case I have no choice but to open a can of whupa* and teach them a thing or two, or just ignore them.

 

[!Fluffy!]

I was going to make acomment but it would probably be misunderstood so I'll leave it out. It was about mordern revelation.

Oh, please elaborate Sola'lor. Because I think you have sensed where I was heading, and it would make for a much more open and honest discussion if YOU bring it up instead of me.

It could take me another 10 pages to get there...

By the way, I want to thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt replies. I have no doubt you are sincere in your beliefs and appreciate the time and effort you have put into your posts.

It may take me a while (real life interferes lately!) but I will honestly try to read them thoroughly before I respond.

IHS,
!Fluffy!

 

[Sola'lor]

Oh, please elaborate Sola'lor. Because I think you have sensed where I was heading, and it would make for a much more open and honest discussion if YOU bring it up instead of me.

It could take me another 10 pages to get there...

By the way, I want to thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt replies. I have no doubt you are sincere in your beliefs and appreciate the time and effort you have put into your posts.

It may take me a while (real life interferes lately!) but I will honestly try to read them thoroughly before I respond.

IHS,
!Fluffy!

Thank you for that. I really appreciate it. Actually I forgot what I was going to say. I'll have to read through the past couple of pages and see if it comes back.

 

[DeepShadow]

Respond to your prophets then please, as all I have done is quote them. What do you think of their words? Why do you agree or disagree? Why would I believe you, instead of them?

The question to me is why you choose to believe the prophets who wrote these debateable opinions over the prophets who called them debateable opinions, in the press release I posted.

There is a clear statement from the church on this matter. Why are you ignoring it?

No one has explained this yet to any satisfaction. It seems you would rather deny than accept your own prophets' statements, and then get angry at me over what THEY said. I find that odd.

I have no anger at what they said. I am confused as why you fail to understand that prophets can have opinions that are not doctrinally binding for the whole church.

None of you bothers to read or evaluate your own literature or history with any intellectual honesty, it seems. And when someone else does it for you at least have the courtesy to respond to what was said and give a good reason for your disagreement.

I don't know what kind of evaluation you are looking for. Prophets have expressed their opinions in the past. I share some of those opinions, and disagree with others, but neither are doctrinally binding for the whole church, as per that press release.

I have done this repeatedly with little response other than "that's not doctrine" or "I've been in the church for X years and never heard that".

Doesn't that tell you something?

You see, for an outsider like me who seems to get varied responses from one end of the spectrum to another when I ask a question about your beliefs - I want the whole truth. Not just a member's opinion.

Hence I posted the press release. The whole truth, not just a member's opinion...which you promptly ignored.

I want to see it in writing, and I want to know the history and context of it. This whole priesthood thing would lead one to believe there is a trusted hierarchy within your church, and prophet presidents sit up there at the top. I believe they speak for the church, whether you do or not.

I do think they speak for the church in official proclamations, such as this press release. Ouside of that, they can have their own opinions.

And if you don't believe they speak for the church, why do you belong to it??

I do believe they speak for the church, when acting in a prophetic capacity. Strange you cannot understand that. The press release makes it pretty clear to me.

And if you lap up the milk and avoid the meat, that's no one's fault but your own.

I enjoy plenty of the meat--as I said, I share the opinions of many of these prophets--but I don't consider this kind of meat doctrinally binding for the whole church...because the prophets (whose statements I respect) have said they are not. Why is this so complicated?

No, I would feel ashamed for not being able to explain something that I supposedly believe.

Funny, as a religious person, I frequently encounter things that defy description. Are you saying that in all your religious experiences, you have never encountered something you were unable to describe?

 

[madhatter85]

LOL, this thread made me laugh as hard as the time i saw the cartoon someone made about mormons sayign we clal heaven "Starbase Kolob"

"The God Makers" makes me laugh in some places. My mom owned a couple anti-mormon Books, the "Salamander Letters", and "The God-Makers", they actually helped strengthen her testimony of the gospel.

 

[Francine]

"The God Makers" makes me laugh in some places. My mom owned a couple anti-mormon Books, the "Salamander Letters", and "The God-Makers", they actually helped strengthen her testimony of the gospel.

There is a very cool science-fiction book by Frank Herbert called The God Makers, which might interest Mormons in a way, since it is about the progression of men to gods, but it is not based on the LDS Church.

 

[nutshell]

There is a very cool science-fiction book by Frank Herbert called The God Makers, which might interest Mormons in a way, since it is about the progression of men to gods, but it is not based on the LDS Church.

For those who don't know, Herbert is the author of the well-known Dune series. The Godmakers is a novel bridging Dune with his other series, The ConSentiency.

 

[Francine]

For those who don't know, Herbert is the author of the well-known Dune series. The Godmakers is a novel bridging Dune with his other series, The ConSentiency.

Ah, you read my article on Wikipedia! I'm "Endomion" who did this edit:

The Godmakers (novel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nutshell]

Ah, you read my article on Wikipedia! I'm "Endomion" who did this edit:

The Godmakers (novel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indeed I did! Good work.

 

[!Fluffy!]

The question to me is why you choose to believe the prophets who wrote these debateable opinions over the prophets who called them debateable opinions, in the press release I posted.

Well, that would entail actually reading (and maybe even pondering!) the quotes themselves, made in such a definitive expository manner as official proclamations.

And then contrasting that with a lame backpedaling press release by some LDS PR spin magician who is obviously expressing discomfort with some of these types of statements made by prophets of the church in the past. Read them both and see the huge contrast for yourself. Why would I NOT take them at their word? Do they lie?

There is a clear statement from the church on this matter. Why are you ignoring it?

I am not ignoring it, I am laughing at it. It's hilariously conveeeenient when confronted with some of the teachings within the Mormon church that obviously divide you from mainstream Christianity, to backpedal so furiously and hide behind an official press release.

Why are you intent upon ignoring your prophets' teachings? This is not ONE prophet, it's a whole slew of them. I wore out my hands and eyes posting them, and there were many, many more where they came from. These were not "lone ranger" proclamations, they are a BODY of confirmation from your own prophets. Why do you do this? Why do you distance yourselves from them? What is up with that? I'm totally serious here. I just don't get it. Your entire system is based on faith in a revelation made by a prophet who insisted that all of Christianity was apostate, that its creeds were an abomination, its teachings were false and its scriptures "mistranslated". I take that seriously, do you? On what do you base your faith, if not prophecy? And why the insistence upon identifying with mainstream Christianity, when Joseph Smith said all of Christianity was in error?

Why do you not answer the questions I have asked repeatedly? This is so frustrating. It's like trying to nail jello to a tree.

It just makes no sense to me. At all.

 

[Katzpur]

Why do you not answer the questions I have asked repeatedly? This is so frustrating. It's like trying to nail jello to a tree.

It just makes no sense to me. At all.

Maybe you should just give up. Seriously. It would probably be less frustrating for everybody concerned. Don't you think it gets tiresome for us, too? We aren't trying to be difficult. I think that quite a few of us have honestly tried to give you answers that you may not necessarily agree with, but that would at least help you understand where we're coming from. No matter how hard we've tried, you respond with sarcasm. If your real purpose is to understand what we believe and why we believe it, I've got to say that I am amazed at your inability to get it. Why don't you just admit that you haven't the slightest inclination to engage in respectful dialogue and that your sole purpose in asking us questions is to cause contention and hurt feelings? Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it really does seem like your posts are full of hostility, and I can't figure out why. We believe differently from you, that's all. Why let it eat at you?

 

[FFH]

There is a very cool science-fiction book by Frank Herbert called The God Makers, which might interest Mormons in a way, since it is about the progression of men to gods, but it is not based on the LDS Church.

THE TRUTH ABOUT "THE GOD MAKERS" - Gilbert Scharffs

 

[DeepShadow]

Well, that would entail actually reading (and maybe even pondering!) the quotes themselves, made in such a definitive expository manner as official proclamations.

Not a bad idea, but why do you say they were made in the same definitive expository manner as official proclamations. They weren't. There are specific ingredients in all official proclamations:

1) Made by multiple prophets/apostles at the same time.
2) Approved by the church body, in a sustaining vote.

So what statements that you are so fond of were issued in this manner?

And then contrasting that with a lame backpedaling press release by some LDS PR spin magician who is obviously expressing discomfort with some of these types of statements made by prophets of the church in the past. Read them both and see the huge contrast for yourself. Why would I NOT take them at their word? Do they lie?

Neither one of them lies. One of them is an opinion. The other is an official statement.

Why are you intent upon ignoring your prophets' teachings? This is not ONE prophet, it's a whole slew of them.

A whole slew of them, on different occasions, rather than together. Big difference.

I wore out my hands and eyes posting them, and there were many, many more where they came from. These were not "lone ranger" proclamations, they are a BODY of confirmation from your own prophets.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." A hundred individual opinions does not amount to an official proclamation.

Why do you do this? Why do you distance yourselves from them? What is up with that? I'm totally serious here. I just don't get it.

I'm not distancing myself from it, I'm saying it's not doctrinally binding for the WHOLE CHURCH. That's one of the key elements of that press release. I've read many such opinions, and I feel many of them are inspired things that the world is not ready for. Others are uninspired opinions, as prophets are men with men's ways.

Your entire system is based on faith in a revelation made by a prophet who insisted that all of Christianity was apostate, that its creeds were an abomination, its teachings were false and its scriptures "mistranslated".

Wow, that's a gross oversimplification, but okay.

I take that seriously, do you? On what do you base your faith, if not prophecy?

Of course we base our faith on prophecy, but that's the problem: a faith based on constant new revelation is easily misled by charismatic leaders with strong opinions. To safeguard against this, we have a system in place that involved the prophetic abilities of the entire worldwide congregation. Hence the sustaining vote.

And why the insistence upon identifying with mainstream Christianity, when Joseph Smith said all of Christianity was in error?

Again with the gross oversimplification. Joseph Smith had plenty of good things to say about Christian teachings as well, and plenty of Christian leaders felt the same about him. Curious in all your hard, hard searching over all his early statements, you managed to only find the ones that make him look hostile...

Why do you not answer the questions I have asked repeatedly? This is so frustrating. It's like trying to nail jello to a tree.

I sympathize. Would you mind giving me a post #? I'll do my best.

 

[FFH]

Review of THE GODMAKERS

"Ed Decker and Dave Hunt's book THE GODMAKERS (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1984) was written to discredit The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the authors used the material in the book in a widely distributed film under the same title. However, to objective observers the book has proved to be an embarrassment to an already discredited anti-Mormon movement. Even as anti-Mormon books go, THE GODMAKERS is one of the worst, most inaccurate attacks on Mormonism ever written. It is reminiscent of some of the hilariously irresponsible anti-Mormon works published in the early days of the Church. Yet, most anti-Mormons still use the book and view it as an accurate analysis of the LDS faith, and the video is still featured in many anti-Mormon catalogs."