Skip to comments.Mormonism and "That's Just His Opinion"
Posted on 03/10/2012 5:31:08 PM PST by delacoert
Often, when Mormons are presented with statements from their leaders that could cause some difficulty for them, many will respond by saying something like "Oh, that's just his opinion. Its not the official view of the Mormon Church." Often, when Mormons talk about official doctrines of the Church they usually mean the Standard Works: The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrines and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
Although many Mormons do not view other LDS writings as official Scripture (for example, The Seer or The Journal of Discourses), it should be remembered that many of these writings consist of the words of very prominent leaders in the Mormon Church. As such individuals commanded great respect they were certainly influential over the rank and file. Their statements must have carried some weight. Mormon leaders in prominent positions, like Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and Bruce R. McConkie, influenced those who looked to them for leadership. The words of these early LDS leaders did not just go out into a vacuum, they went the hearts and minds of the Mormon people and were incorporated into their beliefs.
It would also seem that many Mormon leaders have tended to view their words as carrying a great deal of weight. For example, regarding the sermons of Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses it is interesting to look at some of Young's words himself as to how he viewed what was contained in the Discourses:
Even though it is fashionable for today's Mormons to say that they will not accept statements which are not officially classed as revelation, or Scripture, I came across the following quote of a BYU professor which I thought was interesting regarding this very issue:
Related to the above observations from the BYU professor, it can be pointed out that there are some doctrines of Mormonism that are simply not found in the official Standard Works. The LDS doctrine of their being a "Mother in Heaven" is one example. Nowhere is this doctrine found in any of the official Standard Works of the Church. However, such a doctrine is vital in the Mormon concept of eternal progression. If God was not married to His wife in Mormonism then He could never have become God in the first place.
Some Mormons will object that unless a statement by an LDS Church leader opens with the statement "Thus saith the Lord", then it can be set aside as the mere opinion of the speaker. However, not everyone would agree with this. In 1980 prominent Mormon leaders gave a speech which contained the following words:
Furthermore, the popular, and widely distributed, LDS Church manual Gospel Principles clearly states that the inspired words of the living prophet are supposed to be accepted as scripture by Latter-day Saints. (Gospel Principles, p. 55).
Another objection that some members of the Mormon Church may bring against the words of past LDS leaders is that it was all in the past and that the Church has moved on since then. But the problem with this view is that the entire existence of the Mormon Church is based on the historical events that it appeared in in the early 19th century. Also, modern officially endorsed Mormon publications such as the books in the series entitled:Teachings of the Presidents of the Church, contain prolific quotes from early Mormon publications. So past LDS leaders are still influencing modern Mormons even though the quotes that are given are given selectively.
The conclusion of all this is that it is too easy for Mormons to brush aside something uncomfortable that they might hear from a Mormon leader as "just his opinion", but the truth is that the words of these leaders do carry great weight and influence over the rank and file. In addition to this, as the quotations in this brief article demonstrate, there are Mormon leaders who feel that writings and speeches by Mormon leaders are authoritative even though they may not be contained in the Standard Works.
One thing we have learned about mormonism is that they dismiss as “just opinion” of their leaders if it contradicts with what the current leaders are saying. IE The lds god changes his or her mind frequently.
So wouldn’t that make the lds god not a perfect being, I mean really a perfect being would have no reason to change his mind - just saying.
But hey, when you are not eternal and just progressed I guess it’s ok to make mistakes.
Tom Marr was in for Levin Friday, and he said we are idiots if we don’t accept Mormanism as being no different than Catholicism. He also said I should shut up and quit resisting the Borg.
He was a disgusting Mitt pimp the whole show, Levin should apologize.
Tom Marr is a fool and does not reach the level of pond scum, if that’s what he really believes.
The religion I am most concerned about is Islam, because I once lived in an area surrounded by Muslims and have studied their history going back 13+ centuries.
Then you really need to learn about mormonism.
Joseph Smith declared himself the next mohammed.
You bet I will study Mormons as soon as news breaks out that Mormons are strapping bombs and exploding themselves in crowded civilian areas. Not only I will study them but actively fight against such atrocities. Why do you think I have studied the history of Islam? Because my ancestors have been fighting them for centuries.
I will say it again, learn about mormonism before you dismiss it.
Why should I waste my precious time studying anything which has yet to cause me even a hint of any harm, not seen any evidence of present day atrocities, no be-headings of non-believers, and no one pressuring me to convert to their religion under the threat of my life or be subject to Jizya for rest of my life?
Look at the sign-up date. We will get more of these ‘lying for the lord’ types as the primary goes on. Try to ignore the baiters. It’s a good bet they work for Milt or LDS inc.
“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” - Jesus Christ
No different than Catholics confronted with the socialist claptrap spewing from bishops and Vatican officials: “They don’t speak for the Church” and “They’re poorly catechized”.
(If all Christian church bodies took this 'tude, we'd call all the missionaries home from the relatively "non-hostile" areas & only send them to hostile areas)
I guess you can call it the "new dualism"...where spiritual warfare is nary a thought...and only harm & potential harm to the body is to be concerned about...
Me? I try to take our cultural cue from a certain "Lord" named Jesus Christ...I mean, who are we to follow when it comes to setting cultural priorities? Jesus and the apostle Paul? or entropic characters?
"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)
So does Jesus say, "fear the bomber-terrorists?" (No)
Does Jesus say "fear the 'atrocity-mongers?'" (No)
Does Jesus say "fear the be-headers?" (No)
Instead, does He say to exercise fear of the One who has authority to cast somebody into hell? (Yes)
So, indeed, our "fear" is on behalf of those who are placing their eternal spiritual lives at risk. Of course, this includes Muslims as well...thankfully...not everybody has ADD or ADHD in this generation...like the Silent Generation which fought WWII, some can multi-task on multiple frontlines!
As Paul was leaving the church of Ephesus, he warned them with this high-priority alert:
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20:29-31)
Paul's cultural priority? (Defend against the false disciples who will proselytize the flock and draw away men unto themselves!)
Tell me something, Entropy: If you did something tearfully night and day for three years, do you think it's rather important? So what? We're just to conclude, "Oh, the man who contributed a good chunk to the New Testament -- what does he know about cultural priorities?"
I do not agree. Whoever threatens my body or any of my family and relatives, I will react with all my might and kill them first. My soul can not be destroyed if I keep my body healthy and keep my spirits high with help from my religious beliefs. My religion is 4500 years old and has done excellent job in preserving my soul and sanity. No other religion can succeed in destroying my soul.
“Tell me something, Entropy: If you did something tearfully night and day for three years, do you think it’s rather important? So what? We’re just to conclude, “Oh, the man who contributed a good chunk to the New Testament — what does he know about cultural priorities?”
I assume you are talking about the Christian religion. Outside of my own religion, I hold Christianity in the highest esteem. I have great admiration for devout Christians.
The refrain I continue to hear is “There is a historical LDS and there is a Doctrinal LDS”.
Doesn’t really help their case when I think of all those poor horses that died, on a hill in Cumrah under the weight of steel armor and weaponry some 2,000 years ago.
And those poor Laminites.
Convenient doublespeak ain’t it?
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it does not need "reinterpretation" nor to be added to or detracted from. The Gospel (Good News) of Jesus is forever.
And the second he said it I turned the channel.
He was already getting on my nerves pretending to be the language police.
Very good advice.
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.