Skip to comments.Responding to the “that’s not official doctrine” deflection
Posted on 12/31/2010 9:42:57 AM PST by Colofornian
I spent much of the General Conference weekend downtown doing video interviews for my GodNeverSinned.com project. At one point I shot some video of the missionaries trying to neutralize (hymn-slam?) one of the jeerers outside the Conference Center.
I added annotations to the video as a way of sharing and advertising. One Mormon responded:
Some of the little bubbles displayed randomly during this singing are not true of our beliefs. But, thats how satan teaches by giving half-truths. Hail to the Prophet Joseph Smith!
I asked for specifics, and what follows is the conversation that ensued. She wrote:
Actually, I just watched it again and all of the bubbles contain misinformation. The Book of Mormon outdated? Still contains the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the foundation of the church. We also believe in continued revelation. Ruling over planets? No, we dont believe that. We believe we can become LIKE God eternal and perfect. Not gods of our own planets. That especially is not doctrine. Maybe people assume that, but it is not doctrine.
God, angels, demons and humans all being the same species well, in a sense, yes I guess, (except God our Father is on a whole different plane than we are or will ever be.) God our Father created us ALL, and us humans in His image. There are different types of angels spirits who have not come to earth, those who have come here and have been resurrected, those who have come to earth but not resurrected. Demons, I assume, satans followers will never gain a body and were all created as spirit children of God. Just like the rest of us. They chose to follow Lucifer and were cast out along with him and will never live on this earth.
God being a sinner? I would like to see where you come up with that? We have NEVER taught that as doctrine, EVER. God is perfect, all knowing and all loving. We know the true nature of God meaning He is a being. Where His beginning began? We dont know. For us, He has always existed. We do not believe that, that is an absolute flat out lie. See how all these little bubbles contain mixed up truth? And even lies?? Come on. Who do you think the creator of all that IS?
Certainly not the Lord.
Whether the Book of Mormon of 1830 represents contemporary doctrine of Mormonism in 2009 is a matter of opinion. On this issue I recommend this article by a respected Mormon historian.
I live in Utah, and know lots of Mormons. If you would ever like to have lunch with us, Ill pay for your food. My Mormon friends are very up front about the future exaltation and ruling over planets as gods. Notice on this point how I appeal to traditional Mormonism. I chose that language as to not stereotype Mormons.
Your point about God and demons is compatible with my bubble. They are equivalent in species but varied in states and stages of development. My bubble chose careful language on this point.
On the God-as-former-sinner issue, I invite you to see a preview of my video project on that at GodNeverSinned.com. Regardless of it not being an explicit doctrine specifically promoted from the leadership, it is a mainstream (but not uniform) belief according to my research. I chose my language carefully on this, and said many Mormons, not all Mormons or institutional Mormonism explicitly teaches, etc.
Please tell me what you think of the GodNeverSinned.com project. It is entirely made up of video interviews with real Mormons (most of the video work so far was done this past General Conference weekend).
Take care, I look forward to your reply,
I do not wish to go back and forth with you. While your Mormon friends may talk about being gods and ruling over their own planet, it is still an assumption. There is no doctrine stating that, anywhere. Again, many things you point out ARE just assumptions. Not doctrine. No matter. I am sure you are very passionate in your beliefs and that is wonderful. I know the gospel is true. This knowledge has come from the Holy Ghost who testifies of truth. Have a lovely day.
I responded anyway (maybe I shouldnt have?):
I didnt say it was formal doctrine. On many of those things I said things like, Many Mormons believe. You failed to distinguish between formal doctrine and actual mainstream beliefs, conflating the two, but when I pointed out that many Mormons actually believe thus stuff, you started distinguishing the two. Does that make sense?
Take care and best wishes,
We are free, of course, to form our own opinions which is where you are getting your information it seems from other Mormons opinions and those are not doctrine. It is just interesting to me that this is how people like you like to discredit or bad-mouth the church not focusing on the REAL doctrine, but from assumptions and opinions of members. Giving half-truths and misconceptions. I know the difference between what Mormons assume and what is doctrine, but others do not. They will read your misconceptions and take that as our doctrine that is where confusion sets in. Oh well. All I can do is share my testimony of the gospel. Satan will continue to try to confuse and mislead people until Christ returns.
I know the gospel is true and that Joseph Smith was his prophet in this last dispensation, and that he restored the fullness of the gospel to the earth. I know the Book of Mormon is scripture, and that Joseph translated those ancient plates through the power and gift of Almighty God. I know Jesus Christ is my Savior and Redeemer and through Him, all things are possible.
Have a great day.
Thanks for writing back.
If a majority of church members believe something bad, and it happens to be fostered or implied by the rest of the traditional Mormon worldview, the LDS Church leadership still has a responsibility not to acquiesce to it. Otherwise they are complicit to a degree in the continuance of the belief among lay members, all the while having the ability to reverse the popular belief.
Also, what matters to outsiders like me is not merely abstract official doctrine (whichever of the varying standards you use to define that; Mormons themselves simply disagree over what constitutes official doctrine), but also what beliefs are actually held among members. I know it is embarrassing that many Mormon members believe that God the Father could have been a sinner, but the Mormon worldview and historic leadership have something to account for that. They are not off the hook just because they havent put it in a recent First Presidency statement, etc.,
Well, you are free to form your own opinions, thats fine of course.
I have never been embarrased by what others assume even in the LDS church. They are also free to do so. I know the doctrine and THAT, the doctrine, IS what matters. It actually doesnt matter what other members speculate about because it is just that, speculation.
No matter. The gospel is true.
Have a great day.
But this funny thing happens whenever we tend to quote him...
Why, we Mormons doing cartwheels to avoid treating such statements as "truth."
As Godzilla likes to say, Mormon posters simply toss the old "prophet" "under the bus."
One of the better posts -- perhaps the "Post of the year" in this category -- came from Ejonesie22:
Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are consider unofficial by said officials. At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially. This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness. Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial. This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used here by haters cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site else where. Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially. I hope this clear things up for the lurkers out there. As I said the haters tend to make things complicated and confusing when it is all crystal clear....(This is not an official answer...)
Source: The Challenges of (Non-existent?) Mormon Theology Post #24
In this line of thinking, where Brigham Young once said he had never preached a sermon that couldn't be sent out as "Scripture" -- coupled with Mormon defenders who utter
"That's not Mormon doctrine"
"That's not official Mormon teaching"
"That's not canon"
"That's was someone speaking specutatively..."
We review the best 2010 FREEPER threads dealing with treating such history in a rather disparaging way.
(I mean, c'mon, yes, we easily toss away calendars, but to dismiss such history...well...tsk, tsk, tsk):
* "When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?"
* Brother Brigham forces the LDS reader to ponder some uncomfortable thoughts [321 replies]
* Orson Scott Card: Nothing to fear from the truth
Ping re: mentions of you in post #1
As I wrote when posting that column:
Ah, the bottom line of Mormonism:
#1 Dont confuse me with the historical facts and historical realities about Joseph Smith, character-wise, or anything else. Why? Cause Ive already made up my testimony feeling-mind about that.
* Joseph Smith was a convicted glass-looker who was arrested again for attempting to shut down free speech in his community. (Repeat after me: Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God )
* By even Lds apologists own admission, Joseph Smith slept with his semi-adopted 17 yo housekeeper as early as 1831 and by a dozen years later was adding on a wife per month a dozen of them who were already (and still) married to other men! (Repeat after me: Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God )
* Smith translated an Egyptian funeral document as if it was the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses. (Repeat after me: Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God )
* Uh, could you please explain how Smith said in the Book of Mormon (Moroni 8:18) that God is unchangeable from all eternity to eternity -- yet right before he died, Smith claimed We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see?? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345) (Repeat after me: Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God )
#2 Tell us why again, Orson, that the bottom-line conclusion of Mormons or Mormon-wannabes is to focus on a mere imperfect man, Joseph Smith? Why is the burning-in-the-bosom testimony focusing on who the true Prophet of God is -- as if there's only one, anyway?
What? Do Jews focus on Isaiah to the steady frontline bottom line exclusion of the Messiah Isaiah proclaimed in Is. 53?
Is the original OT prophet of God consistently testified about to the exclusion of all other OT prophets?
Do Baptist Christians focus on John the Baptist to the frontline bottom line exclusion of Jesus Christ?
From the article linked in post #1 about Brigham Young: Brother Brigham is not a book critical of the LDS faith, but its very plot forces the honest Mormon reader to confront two uncomfortable thoughts. How many of us, if we had lived in the time of Joseph Smith, would have believed a 14-year-old boy had been visted by Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ? And, a question perhaps even more difficult to answer, is: Had we been members of the early LDS Church, how many of us would have agreed to ditch our matrimonial covenants and pursue wives half our age? Would we have thought that was of God, or a product of lust? These are not questions that todays Mormons ponder often. In fact, most of us have become quite comfortable scorning fundamentalist polygamist Mormons for their sinful lifestyles.
From the same linked article re: Youn: One day, out of the blue, Brigham Young appears to C.H. and tells him that the LDS Church has slipped into apostasy and that he, C.H., has been called of God to restore the Gospel. Brigham informs C.H. that polygamy must also be restored. Brigham leads C.H. to hidden away money in the desert west of Salt Lake City. The angel, using the same type of language as the Prophet Joseph Smith records in Mormon accounts, pushes C.H. to get things rolling. C.H. reluctantly agrees. He manages to convince his skeptical wife, and then follows the angels commandment to marry Satan-dabbler Sheila, who perhaps not surprisingly given her personality, accepts C.H.s offer. Things start to spiral out of control when Brigham commands C.H. to take an underage ward teen, Cyndy, as a second plural wife.
Hmm...sounds like a 19th century story line...
...Brigham replaces an unnamed "personage"...
...$ instead of "gold plates"...
..."angel, using same type of language as the prophet" replaces gold plates using same type of language as KJV Bible (even though supposedly KJV published thousands of years after some of the BoM gold plate writings)... underage ward teen...well, that was a direct import...Smith's first plural wife was an underage ward teen living at their house. Even Lds apologists say Smith was sleeping with her by 1831.
Do you have a life outside of posting attack articles and comments against America’s most politically conservative Christian religion on a forum designed and devoted to political conservatism? You may have a life outside attacking Mormons, but the evidence here shows otherwise.
Right on target.
'Twas a November day 1831 - 170 years ago...when Smith said:
...this is an ensample unto ALL who were ordained unto this priesthood...and this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are 'moved upon' by the Holy Ghost... [v. 4:] And WHATSOEVER they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost SHALL BE SCRIPTURE, ,
shall be the will of the Lord,
shall be the mind of the Lord,
shall be the word of the Lord,
shall be the voice of the Lord...
Do Mormons catch the "shall be scripture" part?
Smith wasn't speaking to just the upper-etchelon "priesthood" parties...no, v. 2 clearly say "ALL" ordained unto the Mormon priesthood!
Any plain, non-esoteric reading of D&C 68:2-4 makes it quite clear that Smith was saying all Lds ordained priests have "scripture-factory" producing power and authority.
?Now IF that's the case, why are you able to focus on part of this verse -- what the Holy Ghost does -- but you, a Mormon who supposedly greatly emphasizes works, doesn't mention what Mormon priests are supposed to do when so moved -- and that is capture "whatsoever they shall speak" as new Mormon "scripture"??
Now why hasn't the Mormon church, the Mormon Melchizedek priesthood, obeyed D&C 68:2-4? (I'll attempt to answer that Q at the bottom)
In fact, why haven't we even seen the "First Presidencies" going back to Brigham obey this? Why, we'd expect at least them to be "scripture" factories, right? Where's all the new canonized "stuff"? (Tucked away in some granite vault in the Wasatch Mtns?)
Why do Mormons tend to only partially acknowledge that the Lord can reveal His will? (Verbally, yes; in ink, as new "scripture," no???)
And Mormons have the gall to get on Christians for not recognizing that God is done speaking?
So Mormons say they alone have the lone true "prophet" of the earth...
...and they are among the "remnant" that believes in continuing revelation...
...And, they say that their "priesthood" has this Smith charge to proclaim new "scripture" per D&C 68:2-4...
...but they don't...??? ...they've disobeyed for 165 years?
Now to answer why the Lds church hasn't obeyed D&C 68:2-4: Why? Because it's a false prophesy. The entire male church holder positions were never meant to be "scripture factories." Anybody who thinks that should be so hasn't thought through the bedlam & chaos that would create. The stife, the confusion, the rebellion, the lack of submission to leadership, the... (I could go on & on).
All anybody has to do is read about the Mormon murders by ex-Lds members (Ron & Dan Lafferty, 1984, in book Under the Banner of Heaven)...to realize the pitfalls of Lds "personal revelation" -- Ron Lafferty went from being a city council member in Highland, UT, a first counselor to an Lds bishop, youth activities' leader, to somebody involved in a "school of prophets" and convited of murder of his sister-in-law and her daughter, along with his brother. [Looks to me like they took Smith's D&C 68:2-4 very seriously]
One who loves truth would never object when his own religion's truth-claims are challenged. In fact, truth-lovers relish the opportunity to discuss their own faith with others, especially when problems arise, because it helps them to hone their own faith to make it better.
On the other hand, when one objects to such challenges by attacking the person himself rather than addressing the objections, it indicates that one has neither the time nor the inclination to examine his own faith in the light of the challenges. This is not the mark of a truth-lover, but rather, that of one who is deceived, and likes it.
My conclusion: There is little point in giving satisfaction to the small, sophomoric, apparent cult-like band who perseverate with their distorted anti-LDS effluent here by even reading or responding to it. It serves little purpose except to encourage contention and more of the same.
Oh puh-lease. The hatemongering attackers here wouldn’t know truth if it hit them in the head. It’s just attack, attack, attack, mock, mock, mock, hate, hate, hate. Don’t defend them and their disgusting behavior.
You are conflating "refutation" with "hatred."
(Good to hear from you)
...on a forum designed and devoted to political conservatism?
Well, as Elsie has been recently saying:
From the [FR] ping intro page:
Welcome to Free Republic! America's exclusive site for God, Family, Country, Life & Liberty constitutional conservative activists!
Conservatism is WAY down on the list!
You are conflating their bigotry and hatred with reasoned "refutation" and discourse. I put refutation in quotes, because in their case they're attempting to use lies, mockery, and hate to "refute" something about which they've proven themselves to be ignorant.
Thank you. By your own admission and behavior (anyone can see by checking your posting history) you prove my point that neither you nor Elsie understand the purpose of this site. You actually undermine it by making it an unwelcome place for those who are members of the most politically conservative religion in America. You abuse it for your own hateful agendas, ignoring the purpose and mission of this site.
Give an example of a "lie" they told. And then refute their "lie." That is a much better strategy than hand-wringing.
We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: "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 their TEACHING reflects the will of the 'Lord', then too, those same TEACHINGS will reflect church doctrine and not contradict it - since it reflects the 'lords' will. Thus any teaching disregarded by mormons are disregarding the will of the 'lord'. Apostle's teachings are included in this as well (see D&C 1:14-16)
If they TAUGHT 'unofficial' doctrine - then they are FALSE TEACHERS and accordingly FALSE PROPHETS iaw mormon doctrine above - pure and simple.
Spiff, you are very welcome here. This is a Free Republic where comments are encouraged, not like Nauvoo where the mayor there (a certain man named "Smith") sent 200 mobocrats to attack & destroy the place.
You abuse it...
Free speech isn't "abuse," Spiff.
(Perhaps you've been indoctrinated by your leaders to the extent that most critical feedback has been muzzled...A when your leaders speak, the thinking's been done mentality).
To get back to your point about a "welcoming place," just because Mormon missionaries have numerous times knocked on my door through the years, and many of them have recited to me their belief in a "universal apostasy" -- indirectly labeling me as an "apostate" -- I don't see their presence as a neighborhood "threat" in that they treat all non-Mormons as "apostates" and sons & daughters of "apostates."
Spiff I won't recite (you wouldn't likely be interested, anyway) in the long litany of comments made vs. Christians and the Christian church by Mormons for all these years.
Just because I can go to Lds.org and other Mormon Web sites 24/7 and pull up all these comments -- does that make all these Web sites "unwelcoming places?"
I don't see how your comments can face the scrutiny of consistent application.