Reprinted from PostMormon.com
KA wrote:
According to Mormonism, their prophet is as infallible as Vatican II claims the Pope to be - that means, when declaring doctrine, managing the affairs of the church, and knowing the way of salvation, HE CANNOT MAKE A MISTAKE! God will not allow it! Therefore, a Mormon can do nothing but accept declared doctrine and the way the Prophet runs the church unquestioningly and obey accordingly.
Either Gordon B. Hinckley and every previous prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are one hundred per cent correct concerning church affairs and doctrine, or they are false prophets. There is no other option. And unless the current prophet declares a past prophet's doctrine incorrect, or gets "new" revelation because God changed his mind yet again, then all he said STILL STANDS and that cannot be ignored.
--KA
pnut wrote:
LDS prophet Wilford Woodruff, the fourth president of the LDS church, who signed the 1890 manifesto to agree to cease practicing polygamy stated that:
"If we were to do away with polygamy, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the gospel and finally give up our religion altogether."
Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 166
Apostle Orson Pratt said:
"If plurality of marriage is not true, then marriage for eternity is not true and your faith is all in vain, and all the sealing ordinances and powers pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for sure as one is true to other also must be true."
Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, p.224
Joseph Fielding Smith said:
"Plural marriage is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it we could never be exalted to associate with and become gods...."
Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, p. 10
Apostle Orson Pratt further stated:
"The has said that those who reject this principle "polygamy" reject their salvation, they shall be damned."
Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, p. 224
Joseph Fielding Smith clarifies:
"Civil marriage makes servants in eternity. Celestial marriage makes gods in eternity." Celestial marriage was defined only as polygamous at the time JFS was making this statement.
Brigham Young boasted:
"I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom as I know the road to my office. I have never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men that they may not call scripture."
Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95
fast forward to today.... Hinckley distancing himself from the entire history and doctrine of celestial marriage. He claimed that only a very small percentage of early LDS members practiced plural marriage. He denounced it as not a doctrinal practice.
Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/lkl_00.shtml
here is the link to the entire transcript of the interview and GBH goes into greater detail of the controversial history and practice of polygamy in the LDS church.
The modern LDS church is making their best effort in distancing themselves and downplaying the god-revealed practice of polygamy, but the history and teachings will always remain the truth is that celestial marriage was revealed to the founder Joseph Smith as plural, without a doubt and the church cannot completely hide such a revelation entirely from free thinking people.
--pnut
Fairlight wrote:
Russell Nelson said that God's love is conditional. http://www.lds.org/churchmagazines/2003/Feb2003Ensign.pdf ... article on p 20.
He goes on to say that only Anti-Christs believe that God's love is unconditional (bottom of p.23).
His article is full of cunning twists and turns as he vainly attempts to prove his false teachings.
Who is the Anti-Christ? Who is mixing truth with lies?
We all agree that kids need to "earn" rewards like play-time by doing their chores first.
We also agree it is ludicrous to think for a moment that any child should be forced to earn their parent's love.
Yet that is exactly what Mr Nelson claims is God's truth.
Who is the Anti-Christ, Mr Nelson?
Who is the Anti-Christ?
--fairlight
****My Thoughts****
Can the church be "true" with some parts "not true"? Can it still be considered a "restoration of all things" if they are cut out little by little due to social pressures, (blacks gained the priesthood) man-made laws (polygamy specifically outlawed) or to boost attendance in the temples (blood oaths of vengeance, gestures of disembowelment, and touching the bare parts of the body with oil have been cut out of the temple ceremonies since the initial introduction of temple rites)?
I would suggest that the church as it stands right now will be completely unrecognizable 50 years from now. The prophet will become merely a CEO, and the temples will be used for special events, where everyone can enter and witness a wedding.
All the things that make it so sacred and unique are slowly ebbing and chipping away as time progresses. Even Joseph Smith wouldn't recognize the church as it exists today, since it has gone through major overhauls in the last 150 years. In his own words, from the Aug 2001 Ensign, p. 22:
"Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.... He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them,to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them." - Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208
And a further warning from David O. McKay:
"...God is unchangeable, the same yesterday, today and forever... The great mistake made down through the ages by teachers of Christianity, is that they have supposed they could place their own private interpretation upon scriptures, allow their own personal convenience to become a controlling factor, and change the basis of Christian law and practice to suit themselves. This is apostasy."
- Prophet's Message, Church News, June 5, 1965
So, here's the big questions you should ask yourself:
Has the church evolved over time?
Is every ordinance exactly the same as when it was first introduced?
Are the words of every prophet still regarded as revelation, and considered the will of God?
Is this church the same as Joseph's original church? Is it even the same as Brigham Young's vision?
Can you pick and choose what portions you are comfortable with, like the youth activities and homemaking meetings, and discard things that are uncomfortable, like polygamy and naked touching in the temple?
Can you call yourself Mormon if you don't believe in these things?
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
Approaching Mormon Doctrine
Press release from lds.org
Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.
[This is uncomfortable for us, because we have to admit that in some cases, erroneous ideas were taught as doctrine. We want to get the focus off the past, and bring it to the present]
The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.
[Remember Boyd Packer's favorite saying: Some things that are true are not useful...]
The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context, and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them.
[You can't accept at face value, what you hear. You must spend hours pondering it's meanings and making them fit within the context of your current beliefs]
News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic.
[They are too quick to judge us, and present information in unfavorable light without devoting the time necessary to analyze what they learn]
Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:
[We will now teach you reporters how to do your jobs better, so that we look better to the public. This is how you should portray us from now on:]
- Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. The quorum of twelve apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
- Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine. [We don't want to have to defend Brigham Young's teachings on blood atonement, the curse of Cain upon the blacks, men inhabiting the moon , Adam is our father God and had literal sex with Mary to 'beget' Jesus, etc... so we would prefer it if you don't bring it up anymore when reporting or researching our beliefs.]
- Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” [So, all the things that make us different than the other Christian churches need to be de-emphasized as much as possible, so we can be accepted in every community. There is no need for us to call ourselves the 'one true church' anymore.]
- Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” [Even though the church has spent less than $3 million of its $60 billion annually on humanitarian programs throughout the entire world. But we will wear bright yellow shirts and make ourselves highly visible to the community while we work so you can report on our efforts. We don't want you to know that we routinely turn down requests for assistance from the poor simply because they aren't members of our church.]
- Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together. [As long as you use trusted source materials published by Deseret books, and avoid talking with 'our enemies' or using the internet]
- Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology. [ We will continue to privately teach that men can become like Gods and have their own "Earth" populated with their own "spirit children" , but that is something we would not teach our members until they are stronger in testimony and belief. We know that many Christian denominations would dispute that doctrine, but it isn't taught to everyone anyway, so there shouldn't be any reason to bring it up to the world at large.]
Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will. [Anything you say or write that isn't 'faith promoting' will be deemed offensive and we will encourage our members to avoid your work. We can't have you guys going around pointing out our history when we have gone to great lengths to re-write it so that the 'spirit' can be felt.]
"Three Degrees of Glory" stolen from Swedenborg
original link and author is here
I've often wondered where Smith got his descriptions of the afterlife as first described in Section 76 of the D&C.
In D. Michael Quinn's excellent book "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," he gives a very fascinating source of Smith's "revelations." Quinn offers an exhaustive examination of the sources for the 1832 D&C Section 76 "Vision" of the "three degrees of glory."
In fact, Smith's description of the "Celestial Kingdom" was not only a copy from earlier written works, but also VERY controversial to the Latter-Day Saints.
The diaries of Orson Pratt and John Murdock from the 1830's record their efforts to reassure members who questioned the 1832 vision of heaven. The two men described countless excommunications of Mormons, including branch presidents, who denounced "the degrees of glory" as a "satanic revelation." Even Brigham Young had a hard time with it at first and described it as "a trial to many."
Why were Mormons choking on this idea of three heavens?
Quinn explains that it's because members correctly recognized it as coming from the occult. The only other sources of separate degrees in heaven came from occult writers during and before Smith's time.
For example, in 1784 a man by the name of Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book about his visions of the afterlife. Swedenborg insisted: "There are three heavens," described as "entirely distinct from each other." He called the highest heaven "the Celestial Kingdom," and stated that the inhabitants of the three heavens corresponded to the "sun, moon and stars."
By Joseph Smith's own statements, he was familiar with Swedenborg's writings. Smith told a convert by the name of Edward Hunter that "Emanuel Swedenborg had a view of the world to come, but for daily food he perished." In other words, Smith liked Swedenborg's concepts of the afterlife, but criticized him for not profiting from them.
I was so fascinated by the connection that Quinn documented, that I bought a copy of Swedenborg's book myself from Amazon.com. It's called "Heaven and its Wonders and Hell from Things Heard and Seen", and was written way before Joseph Smith. Yet it describes the three Mormon degrees of glory to the tee, along with many other concepts including "the veil," "spirit prison," "celestial marriage," and more.
Not only does Quinn make a strong case that Smith knew all about Swedenborg's ideas, but he also shows that his book "Heaven and Its Wonders and Hell" was a book in Smith's hometown library since 1817. Quinn also writes that "Nine miles from Smith's farm, in 1826 the Canandaigua newspaper also advertised Swedenborg's book for sale. The bookstore offered Swedenborg's publications for as little as 37 cents."
If you ever want to know details about the Mormon afterlife, read Swedenborg's book. Smith liberally plagiarized from it to come up with his D&C "visions" of the celestial, telestial and terrestrial kingdoms. But Swedenborg's works are definitely the originals.
Read it online here:
http://swedenborg.newearth.org/hh/hh00toc.html
****My Thoughts****
Just perusing the chapter headings should be convincing enough. Which came first, Swedenborg or Joseph Smith? Maybe a quick comparison between "A View of the Hebrews" and the Book of Mormon would shed some light as well.
No, I don't believe Joe was inspired at all. At best he was delusional---seeing visions and claiming God speaks to you would be enough to get you locked up these days. At worst, he was a purposeful con-artist, trying to elude his partner money-diggers, and build up his reputation as a skillful seer by "finding" an ancient scripture and claiming to have been 'chosen' to translate it.
I don't think he intended to create a church, but the people who followed him and believed in his powers gave him the momentum to organize a church, become their leader, and then claim "sole" divine authority to proclaim God's word, (after too many followers started looking into their own seer stones and receiving their own revelations). That's why the official first vision story that supposedly occurred in 1820 didn't get written or published until 1838. Nobody in the original church even knew anything about Moroni or the appearance of God and Jesus to Joseph until it was written 18 years later. It does not make since for Joe to claim that he was continually persecuted for saying he saw an angel, when he didn't even share that story with the public until many years AFTER the Book of Mormon was published.
An interesting side note: Joseph was named author and proprietor of the original 1830 manuscript. Wanna see?
If you're interested, it's for sale on Ebay for a paltry $59,000. (for eight more days)
If only I could sell a kidney, or had some sort of trust fund, then I could read for myself the many textural changes between the 1830 version and subsequent editions. Well, why should I have to have the actual book in front of me, when dozens of people have done the research already? It's just a matter of who you choose to listen too...
An LDS member already knows that they can't read material that isn't supplied to them by the church. They also know that they shouldn't be checking out anti-Mormon sites on the internet, since it may lead them to 'doubt' the faith. My question is: What is the church worried about? They have the truth on their side, and truth should be able to withstand scrutiny...
I've often wondered where Smith got his descriptions of the afterlife as first described in Section 76 of the D&C.
In D. Michael Quinn's excellent book "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," he gives a very fascinating source of Smith's "revelations." Quinn offers an exhaustive examination of the sources for the 1832 D&C Section 76 "Vision" of the "three degrees of glory."
In fact, Smith's description of the "Celestial Kingdom" was not only a copy from earlier written works, but also VERY controversial to the Latter-Day Saints.
The diaries of Orson Pratt and John Murdock from the 1830's record their efforts to reassure members who questioned the 1832 vision of heaven. The two men described countless excommunications of Mormons, including branch presidents, who denounced "the degrees of glory" as a "satanic revelation." Even Brigham Young had a hard time with it at first and described it as "a trial to many."
Why were Mormons choking on this idea of three heavens?
Quinn explains that it's because members correctly recognized it as coming from the occult. The only other sources of separate degrees in heaven came from occult writers during and before Smith's time.
For example, in 1784 a man by the name of Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book about his visions of the afterlife. Swedenborg insisted: "There are three heavens," described as "entirely distinct from each other." He called the highest heaven "the Celestial Kingdom," and stated that the inhabitants of the three heavens corresponded to the "sun, moon and stars."
By Joseph Smith's own statements, he was familiar with Swedenborg's writings. Smith told a convert by the name of Edward Hunter that "Emanuel Swedenborg had a view of the world to come, but for daily food he perished." In other words, Smith liked Swedenborg's concepts of the afterlife, but criticized him for not profiting from them.
I was so fascinated by the connection that Quinn documented, that I bought a copy of Swedenborg's book myself from Amazon.com. It's called "Heaven and its Wonders and Hell from Things Heard and Seen", and was written way before Joseph Smith. Yet it describes the three Mormon degrees of glory to the tee, along with many other concepts including "the veil," "spirit prison," "celestial marriage," and more.
Not only does Quinn make a strong case that Smith knew all about Swedenborg's ideas, but he also shows that his book "Heaven and Its Wonders and Hell" was a book in Smith's hometown library since 1817. Quinn also writes that "Nine miles from Smith's farm, in 1826 the Canandaigua newspaper also advertised Swedenborg's book for sale. The bookstore offered Swedenborg's publications for as little as 37 cents."
If you ever want to know details about the Mormon afterlife, read Swedenborg's book. Smith liberally plagiarized from it to come up with his D&C "visions" of the celestial, telestial and terrestrial kingdoms. But Swedenborg's works are definitely the originals.
Read it online here:
http://swedenborg.newearth.org/hh/hh00toc.html
****My Thoughts****
Just perusing the chapter headings should be convincing enough. Which came first, Swedenborg or Joseph Smith? Maybe a quick comparison between "A View of the Hebrews" and the Book of Mormon would shed some light as well.
No, I don't believe Joe was inspired at all. At best he was delusional---seeing visions and claiming God speaks to you would be enough to get you locked up these days. At worst, he was a purposeful con-artist, trying to elude his partner money-diggers, and build up his reputation as a skillful seer by "finding" an ancient scripture and claiming to have been 'chosen' to translate it.
I don't think he intended to create a church, but the people who followed him and believed in his powers gave him the momentum to organize a church, become their leader, and then claim "sole" divine authority to proclaim God's word, (after too many followers started looking into their own seer stones and receiving their own revelations). That's why the official first vision story that supposedly occurred in 1820 didn't get written or published until 1838. Nobody in the original church even knew anything about Moroni or the appearance of God and Jesus to Joseph until it was written 18 years later. It does not make since for Joe to claim that he was continually persecuted for saying he saw an angel, when he didn't even share that story with the public until many years AFTER the Book of Mormon was published.
An interesting side note: Joseph was named author and proprietor of the original 1830 manuscript. Wanna see?
If you're interested, it's for sale on Ebay for a paltry $59,000. (for eight more days)
If only I could sell a kidney, or had some sort of trust fund, then I could read for myself the many textural changes between the 1830 version and subsequent editions. Well, why should I have to have the actual book in front of me, when dozens of people have done the research already? It's just a matter of who you choose to listen too...
An LDS member already knows that they can't read material that isn't supplied to them by the church. They also know that they shouldn't be checking out anti-Mormon sites on the internet, since it may lead them to 'doubt' the faith. My question is: What is the church worried about? They have the truth on their side, and truth should be able to withstand scrutiny...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
