Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do “Official” Mormon Sources Exist?
Mormon Coffee (MRM.org) ^ | Jan. 26, 2012 | Sharon Lindbloom

Posted on 02/12/2012 7:24:21 PM PST by Colofornian

How do you know?


TOPICS: Apologetics; History; Other non-Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: inman; lds; mormon; official; theology
Scroll down the page to this one...:

4:56 clip on how Mormons dismiss and diss their own authoritative sources.

1 posted on 02/12/2012 7:24:26 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
I recall a thread where Lds poster Normandy said:

the LDS church has never put forward … the doctrine of the LDS church [Normandy].

Poster Delacoert responded: Ya' don't say. LOL Has anyone ever noticed that most endearing Mormon quality of denying that this or that teaching is doctrine, when it is clear to everyone that IS doctrine?

ALL: Well, it's tough to beat to that excellent size-up provided by Delacoert. I think my all-time "fave" cut-to-the-chase summary of this common line of Mormon thinking we've seen over the FREEPER years was the following contribution from Ejonesie22...(I believe Ejonesie22 must have dusted off the microscope to read the Mormon legal fineprint that Paragon Defender often linked to!):

The 'classic' assessment from Ejones: 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.... Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2573705/posts Post #24

(Thanks again Ejones!...we need those fine-print navigators out there! ...and thanks, Normandy...we need cont'd Lds examples like what's you've provided on this thread to see how Mormons have learned to deflect the consequences of their leaders' words!)

2 posted on 02/12/2012 7:25:19 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
How often have we seen posts through the years where somebody cites a previous sermon or Journal of Discourses reference by an LDS “prophet” or general authority only to be told, “Ya know, that’s not LDS canon!” or “You can’t hold an LDS “prophet” or “apostle” accountable for every obscure spiritual message he gives in public, can you?”

Whenever a Mormon would offer up such an explanation, well, how befuddled could they leave readers? Here, LDS have lectured us left & right about the need for living revelators & seers & "prophets" & "apostles" via general conference messages, Ensign mag articles, sermons, teachings, writings, etc. (So tell us again why it’s our issue if Mormons consider what any general authority—dead or alive—has voiced publicly to either be dismissed or deemed obscure?

ALL: The lesson to be learned here? ANYthing ANY Mormon general authority has said can be readily dismissed. If one Lds "prophet" has said "No blacks allowed." Well, so what? A later Lds "prophet" just updates the teaching; reverses it, and moves on.

* Polygamy as a Book of Mormon "abomination" in the Book of Jacob, 1830? (Yup)
* Joseph Smith & D&C 132 institutionalizing it? (Yup)
* A manifesto frowning upon it (1890?) (Yup)
* McConkie announcing the Mormon Jesus will rebound polygamy into the earthly mix? (1966) (Yup)
* Lds leaders tossing McConkie's book "Mormon Doctrine" in the waste bin of republishing? (2010) (Yup)
* Polygamy going on near Kolob right now, per Mormonism? (Yup)

My advice? Since some Lds posters so readily tosses parts of McConkie's prophecies into the waste bin -- as his leaders have modeled for him -- why, just do the same thing with ALL what Mormon leaders have prophesied through the years!

As other FREEPERS pointed out (see post #1], I think it’s downright disingenuous to hype up tone & content-wise to…

IN ONE BREATH…
“We’re the only church on earth that has a living prophet who speaks for God on all things...and we are the living church which has restored the 12 apostles”…

AND THEN IN THE NEXT BREATH TELL US
“Yeah, we know all about that ‘speaking for God’ thing but you know…
(a)…”Nobody’s perfect…”
(b) …”these guys engage in countless public speculations…”
(c) …”we were hoping you wouldn’t notice all that much of what they’ve had to say ‘cause we assigned much of it to that round file over there we call the ‘obscurity bucket…’
(d) …”and, besides, nobody knows for certain if what they say has been recorded accurately…these are things that were just reported to have been said at one time or another…I mean, come on, they’re only God’s living prophets, presidents, revelators, seers, apostles & representatives on earth…What? Do you expect us to have an accurate stenographer on hand to at least 100% accurately report what they’ve said in sermons & general conferences?”

3 posted on 02/12/2012 7:26:50 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Normandy; delacoert; ejonesie22

Ping — mention of you in post #2


4 posted on 02/12/2012 7:28:03 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

“I dont know that we teach that”

Gordon Hinckley, Mormon Prophet


5 posted on 02/12/2012 7:28:37 PM PST by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bidhop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

“I dont know that we teach that”

Gordon Hinckley, Mormon Prophet


6 posted on 02/12/2012 7:28:58 PM PST by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Mitt Romney, Dec, 2007, speaking at the George Bush Presidential Library: “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”

You notice that Romney said “Mormon faith”

He said nothing about Christian faith...

So since this “faith” is non-Christian, thus excluding the Christian God and Savior and the Christian Bible...

So just what is it that Willard Mitt Romney and his Mormon forefathers believed ???


7 posted on 02/12/2012 7:41:47 PM PST by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Riders of the Purple Sage - Zane Grey.

Original version is all about Mormons.


8 posted on 02/12/2012 7:52:49 PM PST by satan (Plumbing new depths of worthlessness on a daily basis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
The classic assessment from Ejones" lol. PRICELESS.

certainly clears things up.

9 posted on 02/12/2012 8:01:05 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana; Colofornian

But Joe says he even met with John the Baptist, the apostles Peter, James and John, plus the Old Testament prophets Moses, Elias and Elijah? (Elias in the New Testament is simply the Greek rendering of Elijah), which is more than anyone in the Bible did, and puts him in competition with fellow seer Eugene Swedenborg: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Swedenborg.html (similarities)


10 posted on 02/12/2012 8:08:54 PM PST by daniel1212 (Trust in the Lord Jesus to save you as a contrite damned+morally destitute sinner + be forgiven+live)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

“the LDS church has never put forward … the doctrine of the LDS church “

Hi Colofornian — could you remind me of the full post that I made? There are some words missing from this sentence.


11 posted on 02/12/2012 8:19:31 PM PST by Normandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

mormonISM tends to be what is said today, what was said yesterday doesn’t matter, and what is said tomorrow is what is.
place marker


12 posted on 02/12/2012 8:38:17 PM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; Jeff Head; Godzilla
Note these seven post excerpts from Lds poster Jeff Head Mormonism: What the Latter Day Saints think of Islam [Indicator of how Mitt perceives Islam?]

What do we learn from Jeff as “excuses” why what Lds “prophets” and “apostles” are not to be readily believed in what they preach from the Mormon pulpit or what they write?

Lds FR poster Jeff Head's actual comments from: Mormonism: What the Latter Day Saints think of Islam [Indicator of how Mitt perceives Islam?] Upshot of Jeff Head's commentary?
(1) ”These men were not perfect and they had their opinions like we all do on such things...” (Post #30) Imperfect, opinionated men serve as Mormon “prophets” – just like us [So much for being elite mouthpieces for God who take care to speak more on HIS behalf than THEIRS!]
(2) "They do have their opinions, like we all do. "When moved upon by the Holy Ghost," then their words are taken as the counsel and direction you cite for the church and I agree wholeheartidly with that. When that is the case, the church is informed, policy and instructions are issued and the Church moves along accordingly..." (Post #36) Opinionated men who offer counsel and direction – but not to be deemed as authoritatively official Mormon doctrine until IF (a HUGE IF) it's LATER (as in MUCH LATER) determined if they moved by the Holy Ghost. [ALL: Keep in mind that Joseph Smith's first vision found in the Pearl of Great Price Mormon “scripture” wasn't determined as “official scripture” until 1875...almost 40 years after the fact...and Brigham Young's D&C 136 didn't become “official” Mormon “scripture” until 74 years after the fact (1921). Joseph F. Smith's D&C 138 didn't become “official” Mormon “scripture” until 62 years after the fact (1981). For some reason, it takes the Mormon church between 40-74 years to determine if the Holy Ghost actually spoke thru one of its “prophets”...yet they keep promising a huge benefit is a “living prophet” who is on “real time” between God and man...if God's message can't be “officially” confirmed until 40-74 years after the fact, what do they do in the interim?]
(3) "The Journal of Discourses is not recognized or taught of as scripture for the church. It is a historical journal of many of the speeches and lectures those men gave, but they of themselves do not represent the doctrine that the Church espouses or follows. People should check with Church offical representatives and spokesmen and ask as regards these things before they quote those speeches as somehow being the offical doctrine of the church...because more often than not, particularly when quoted to try and find the most outlandish things that those men said many years ago, and to find fault with or tear down the church, they simply are not." (Post #41) Jeff Head essentially says in the bold-faced portion – hey, listen to what our “prophets” and “apostles” say...but don't quote them... IOW, Lds public relations spokesmen and spokeswomen actually carry more “official” weight in what they say than do past Lds “prophets” and “apostles”!!! Wow! Just wow! Apparently Mormon PR spokespeople are the "final arbiters" of Mormon "truth" (who trump even deceased Mormon "prophets" and "apostles"). Elsewise, they wouldn't be the "filter" people have to go through to determine “official” Mormon "truth," now would they?
(4) ”Sorry, Godzilla, Gospel Principles is a book Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, it is not regarded as scripture. Not every word they speak or write is scripture and considered or taught as church doctrine, it is when they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost to do so...Are there things in Gospel Principles that the Church does teach as its doctrine? Yes. Are there things in there it does not? Also, yes.” (Post #46) Yes, the “official” Mormon church book “Gospel Principles” has official doctrine in it; and unofficial doctrine in it, too...but, hey, Mormons aren't going to tell you which is which! (And that's the unofficial official word on this!)
(5) ”...And no, the leaders do not teach false doctrine, because then they would be representing it as doctrine...but, like all of us, they are entitled to their own opinions when speaking or talking outside of their mantel as an Apostle or Prophet when moved upon by the Holy Ghost to speak for the Lord. When they are speaking in that manner, then the doctrine is passed down to the Church as I have indicated earlier. As I said, these men are not perfect...” (Post #62) When Lds “prophets” and “apostles” speak, you can't readily tell if they are speaking on the official “prophetic” mantle or not...could be just their opinions, which they're entitled to... (When, again, are they donning that mantle and moving beyond mere personal opinions? Um...we'll let you know...maybe...but that might not be “official” word until determined by a later group of Mormons sustaining whatever is being uttered now)
(6) ”I have read what you quoted and pointed to in the Gospel Principles manual, and have no problem with it. As I said, when new scripture or revelations are decided upon (and the quorum to the twelve must prayerfully and through inspiration themselves agree unanimously upon them) it is them communicated to the whole church in the manner I indicated. Not everything these men say or write is regarded as such. Only that which is recognized as inspired and moved upon by the Holy Ghost as mentioned. Now, it goes without saying that there are members of the church who take everything they say as “scripture” because of their calling, and there is no doubt that they are thought highly of and listened to closely...but they are still human and have never indicated anything but that, and history and the doctrine itself that we as a church embrace, as pointed out by yourself in the manual, indicates that this is not the case.” (Post #70) You know we really can't trust what “prophets” and “apostles” say 'cause they're human...but some of what they say eventually makes it thru the “recognition-as-revelation” filter and when it receives official imprimatur, it's only THEN what they say is deemed 100% trustworthy
(7) ”...read the Church web site, it makes clear what the “Standard Works” are, right now, right here. They do not include the Journal of Discourses and officially, they never have. That’s just the truth...Do people gain good information about doctrine from them? Yes, of course. They are volumnous. I have a set myself which I read and use for reference quite often...there are a lot of very good things in there. But, are there are also some very clear and difinite opinions in there that are not considered doctrine by the Church? Yes, of course, you have shown quite a few. But the fact renmains, they are not the “Standard Works,” and not considered “scripture” by the Church.” (Post #93) Even though other Lds officials have called the Journal of Discourses as “the fountain of eternal truth” (an Lds “apostle”), “one of the standard works of the church” (a First President), “exposition of Latter-day Saint doctrine” (the official Mormon publishing house), “the unmistakable authority of divine inspiration” (the official Mormon publishing house), etc....apparently Mormon leaders weren't really serving as daily “living prophets” whose very words could be trusted? Why? Because, per Jeff, their messages are so imbedded with their personal opinions, who can readily sort what from what?.

The key question then to ask of Jeff: When will the Lds church let us know that what past and present Lds “prophets” and “apostles” have said is specifically UNtrustworthy? (Crickets)

13 posted on 02/12/2012 8:54:08 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Normandy; All
Hi Colofornian — could you remind me of the full post that I made? There are some words missing from this sentence.

Yes...fair comment...What you said in fuller context:
Despite its title, the LDS church has never put forward Mormon Doctrine as THE declaration of the doctrine of the LDS church.
Source: Normandy

You were specifically referencing McConkie's book...yet if the most comprehensive effort by a Mormon "apostle" (book, Mormon Doctrine)...can't be "put forward" as "THE doctrine" of the LDS church...NOTHING can!

14 posted on 02/12/2012 9:14:24 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All
The clip makes mention of the Lds "Journal of Discourses."

What have Mormon leaders said about these messages from Mormonism's "General Authorities?"

(1) Who authorized Watt to record the Journal of Discourses? (Brigham Young)
Who ranks highest in the Mormon church to carry out what he assigns? (The "prophet")

(2) So when grassroots Mormons tell us to disregard the "Journal of Discourses" as unofficial, consider this: Who ranks higher, grassroots Mormons? -- Or, an Lds apostle? What did Lds apostle Franklin D. Richards in the JoD preface of vol. 2 reference the JoD as?

The Second Volume of the Journal of Discources needs no recommendation to make it interesting to every Saint who loves to drink of the streams that flow from the fountain of Eternal Truth.

(3) Also...who ranks higher grassroots Mormons? Or, a member of the First Presidency who served in such a role to four different Lds “prophets?” What did this First Presidency official reference the JoD as?

The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press..." (President George Q. Cannon, JoD, preface, Vol. 8)

(4) What about Lds leaders within our lifetime? What have Lds leaders said about the JoD?

Well, on March 21, 1963, the Deseret News ran an ad from Lds church leadership about the JoD. The ad read: Every Latter-day Saint should take this opportunity of owning the written words of remarkable teachings from the LDS pulpit. To the clear and vigorous exposition of Latter-day Saint doctrine is added the unmistakable authority of divine inspiration."

What more can we get from leaders re: the JoD? Here church leaders were sqawking that the JoD is...
..."from the LDS pulpit..."
...exposes "Latter-day Saint doctrine" clearly & vigorously...
...presented with "divine inspiration...authority" -- and there's no mistake ("unmistakable" about that)

So, e'en tho many grassroots Mormons will indicate these "Lds leaders" are mistaken re: their assessments of the JoD, note that...

...Three months after that ad appeared in the Deseret News, the assistant manager of the DesNews, Axel J. Andresen, wrote a letter about the JoD to a Mr. H.C. Combes dated June 12, 1963. In a few excerpts from that letter, Mr. Andresen said:

"...the 26 volumes of the 'JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES,'...If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about. I am sure that the individual is not anyone in authority -- certainly not among the General Authorities...May we also assure you that Deseret Book Company, being the only Church-owned book store, would not distribute literature on the Church, particularly anything as important as the Discourses of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church, without the approval of the Church..."

ALL: This DesNews Asst Mgr says before contemporary Mormons even opened their mouths on this subject, that they "know not what" you "are talking about."

15 posted on 02/12/2012 9:35:29 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
I believe it is quite possible that Romney as the republican nominee will cause a great break in Mormon ranks and number. Many of the followers will begin looking independently into the 'faith' and the 'institution.'

Of course Romney will also do great damage to the GOP. But that is to be expected.

16 posted on 02/12/2012 10:16:36 PM PST by CT (Make Mine Newt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Thanks, Colofornian — I remember now.

Mormon Doctrine is not an official publication of the LDS church. It was written by Bruce R. McConkie before he was called to be an apostle, back in the late 1950s. The author states in the preface of the book that it is his work alone, and that he is fully responsible for it. The LDS church has never set it forward as an authoritative declaration of doctrine.


17 posted on 02/13/2012 12:52:12 AM PST by Normandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
What can we consider an 'OFFICIAL MORMON'   teaching??
 
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 elsewhere.
 
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.
The haters tend to make things complicated and confusing when it is all really quite crystal clear.

18 posted on 02/13/2012 4:16:02 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

ping to above


19 posted on 02/13/2012 4:16:51 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Since some Lds posters so readily tosses parts of McConkie's prophecies into the waste bin -- as his leaders have modeled for him -- why, just do the same thing with ALL what Mormon leaders have prophesied through the years!

It's OFFICIAL!!




In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.


1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

Ezra Taft Benson

(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)

20 posted on 02/13/2012 4:19:46 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
“You can’t hold an LDS “prophet” or “apostle” accountable for every obscure spiritual message he gives in public, can you?”

Notice: When we MORMONs drag up some statement that a christian has made, and try to hold THEIR feet to the fire for saying it; it is NOT the same thing!!

--MormonDude(Headquarters says so!)

21 posted on 02/13/2012 4:23:20 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
...it is NOT the same thing!!

--MormonDude(I cannot source any CHRISTIAN saying, "...anything I preach can be considered scripture...")

22 posted on 02/13/2012 4:24:30 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Normandy
There are some words missing from this sentence.

Indeed!

I've NEVER heard you say ANYTHING about MORMONisn in your posts; only things that are found in CHRISTIANITY!

23 posted on 02/13/2012 4:26:18 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
People should check with Church offical representatives and spokesmen and ask as regards these things before they quote those speeches as somehow being the offical doctrine of the church

HEY!

I thought we told you little people to QUIT bothering us at Headquarters with all of your inane little question!!??



24 posted on 02/13/2012 4:29:21 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Normandy
The LDS church has never set it forward as an authoritative declaration of doctrine.

Then WHY did it receive so much attention by HEADQUARTERs if it were NOT 'official'?

25 posted on 02/13/2012 4:39:57 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Since some Lds posters so readily tosses parts of McConkie's prophecies into the waste bin -- as his leaders have modeled for him -- why, just do the same thing with ALL what Mormon leaders have prophesied through the years!

Hater!!

You bigots just WON'T leave POLYGAMY alone, will you!

--MormonDude(We are LAW abiding citizens. {US law, that is; not GOD's})

26 posted on 02/13/2012 4:43:41 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
 
Our ONLY function here is to say,
 
 
 
 
“YES! Yes YES!! Yes yes YES YES!!! yes Yes! YES Yes! and yes

27 posted on 02/13/2012 4:45:07 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Maybe!!!


28 posted on 02/13/2012 4:48:34 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
the LDS church has never put forward … the doctrine of the LDS church

Now mormons have produced a huge lie about the Savior's life..."all told from a mormon perspective."

mormon doctrine second edition image Pictures, Images and Photos

Messiah: Behold The Lamb Of God (REAL Mormon / LDS)

29 posted on 02/13/2012 7:06:22 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (Don't call us bigots! "Bigotry" is 98% of mormons in NV voting for Mitt Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
Ah, I so miss PD. He was the best Anti-Mormon around...
30 posted on 02/13/2012 7:24:00 AM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Notice: When we MORMONs drag up some statement that a christian has made, and try to hold THEIR feet to the fire for saying it; it is NOT the same thing!!

LOL !!! :)

31 posted on 02/13/2012 7:26:01 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Unofficial remarks made by the "Official" Robert L. Millet, professor of religion and emeritus dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University, which he takes it upon himself to "define" Christianity and then says, "Latter-day Saints seek only the right to define themselves in today’s world.

Traditional Christianity and the Latter-day Saints [Mormon Doctrine]


32 posted on 02/13/2012 7:52:10 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (Don't call us bigots! "Bigotry" is 98% of mormons in NV voting for Mitt Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39; All
Bingo.

Millet refutes himself...he (& many other Mormons) keep claiming that they ONLY want to define themselves...all as they define Christianity as...
...strayers & abandoners of original Christianity...
...lacking derived authority to act at God's moving...
..."apostates"...
..."corrupt professors"...
..."abominable" creed adherers...
...unrestored faith-clingers...
...a dead & false church...
..."church of the devil"...
...etc.

Sorry, Mormons. You can't keep having it both ways. You can't keep claiming the ability to 100% define...
...Christianity as the above...
...fLDS as non-Mormons...
...and Mormonism as the ONLY "restored Christianity" on the planet...
...and escape the reality that this makes you two-faced hypocrites!

33 posted on 02/13/2012 8:01:35 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Good ol' Bob!

What's not to love??


 
 
Professor Robert Millet        teaching at the Mission Prep Club in 2004  http://newsnet.byu.edu/video/18773/  <-- Complete and uneditted

 
 
Timeline...    Subject...
 
0:59           "Anti-Mormons..."
1:16           "ATTACK the faith you have..."
2:02           "We really aren't obligated to answer everyone's questions..."
3:57           "You already know MORE about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than any who would ATTACK you."


34 posted on 02/13/2012 10:05:23 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Good ol' Bob!

What's not to love??


If you like Jeff's reasonings; then THIS is the man to follow; Robert Millet; MORMON and Professor, Apologist.
 
 
I feel like I have a sense of responsibility to be as, as gentle and kind and, in my case, Christian as possible. It's, to me, if you're, if you want to talk about Christianity or what it stands for, you have to look carefully at what it produces in people. My religion, for me, not only sets forth my theology, but it sets forth my practical, daily living in terms of how I treat other people and how I come to love them. And whether they feel the same way about ultimate and eternal things that I do or not.
 
 
 
http://being.publicradio.org/programs/insidemormonfaith/transcript.shtml

35 posted on 02/13/2012 10:06:10 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Good ol' Bob!

What's not to love??


Mr. Millet: I don't think we can ever transcend Joseph Smith or consider him to be a valued personality, but now we'll move on. I don't think you'll see that among believers in the faith, because there are too many other things that came from him that are the reasons why we do what we do and we are what we are. That there are unanswered questions, to be sure. That there are things that I'm as anxious as the next guy to learn more detail on, I really want to know. But in the interim, it really doesn't, doesn't trouble me. We're in the religion-making business, as you intimated earlier, only for a short time, I mean, compared to the Christian church, which has been at this for a couple of millennia. We're about halfway to Nicaea. And so, and so in that sense — I remember a very tender moment. I was speaking with — I've been invited to the Salt Lake Theological Seminary, basically an Evangelical seminary, to discuss a book I had done on Jesus. And they had read it, and they wanted me to come and just respond to questions.
 
And it was, it was a very enjoyable couple of hours.
The very last question that was asked by one of my friends there was this one.
He said, 'Bob, what can we do for you?'
 
And I, I wasn't ready for that question. I said, 'What do you mean?'
 
He said, 'What can we, as Evangelicals, do for our Mormon friends?'
 
And I, I guess my mind could have gone a hundred different ways, but what I came back with was this.
I said, 'Boy, I appreciate you asking that. I don't think I've ever been asked that.'
But, but I said, 'Try this. Cut us a little slack, will you? Give us a little time.
We're in the religion-making business, and this takes time. It takes centuries.
And, and trying to explain the faith and articulate the faith, that doesn't come over night.
We've really only been about that for 20 or 30 years.'
 
 
http://being.publicradio.org/programs/insidemormonfaith/transcript.shtml

36 posted on 02/13/2012 10:06:29 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The lds-org denies that Jesus is the Creator, that everything was created THROUGH Him, BY Him and FOR Him.

37 posted on 02/13/2012 11:44:32 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39; Colofornian
"Official" Robert L. Millet, professor of religion and emeritus dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University, which he takes it upon himself to "define" Christianity and then says, "Latter-day Saints seek only the right to define themselves in today’s world.

LOL, they can't define their doctrine beyond its someone's opinion.

38 posted on 02/13/2012 11:59:47 AM PST by Godzilla (3/7/77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; Normandy; All
Well, on March 21, 1963, the Deseret News ran an ad from Lds church leadership about the JoD. The ad read: Every Latter-day Saint should take this opportunity of owning the written words of remarkable teachings from the LDS pulpit. To the clear and vigorous exposition of Latter-day Saint doctrine is added the unmistakable authority of divine inspiration."

From the LDS website "Gospel Principles, Chapter 10, Scriptures:
Words of Our Living Prophets
In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9).

Then they ask the following question

• Where can we find the words of our living prophets?

However, according to mormons here - those words are only opinions and not scripture. Yet their manual on doctrine - Gospel Principles - make it very clear that the WORDS given in conference, and official publications are scripture as well.

Joseph smith wouldn't recognize today's mormonism.

39 posted on 02/13/2012 12:05:48 PM PST by Godzilla (3/7/77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla; All
...according to mormons here - those words are only opinions and not scripture. Yet their manual on doctrine - Gospel Principles - make it very clear that the WORDS given in conference, and official publications are scripture as well. Joseph smith wouldn't recognize today's mormonism.

Today's Mormons -- in order to escape the charges they lob @ others -- try to distance themselves from the claims of their Past (& sometimes, present) leaders via weasel words.

What's interesting is that they've always touted having a "living prophet" (where they often cite Amos 3:7) so that they can present-tense revelational guidance given to their "seers." This is supposed to be one of the things they can look at with pride at what "sets them apart" from Christianity...(Of course, they fail to recognize that Jesus Christ HIMSELF...per Hebrews 1:1-2...remains our 'Living Prophet'...a title He no longer has to delegate to somebody else)

Their problem is they are downright embarrassed over MUCH of what their past leaders have said. Straight-arm time!

The thing is...they now claim that no Mormons want to immediately honor the words of their "seers" as direct revelation until a group of their leaders get together...sometimes 40...62...74 years later...and declare as a man-made creed-like council that a certain statement was "scripture" after all.

More hypocrisy...especially since Mormons condemn historic church leader councils that came up with certain creeds!

So it's A-OK for the Mormon church to have a "council" and decide, "Nope...most of these words uttered by this 'prophet' and this 'apostle' wasn't 'scripture'...but this little tidbit was."

40 posted on 02/13/2012 12:24:26 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
What's interesting is that they've always touted having a "living prophet"

Yet when asked time and time again, mormons are silent on what great revelation their "living prophet" has uttered lately.

41 posted on 02/13/2012 12:28:01 PM PST by Godzilla (3/7/77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson