LDS

[RandFan]

The resurrected Lord visited and ministered among the "lost tribes" following His ministry among the Nephites:
3 Nephi 17:4 "But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for He knoweth whither He hath taken them."

Oddly enough he didn't visist the Chinese or folks in India. God apparently didn't think of them as his sheep.

 

[tsig]

Brigham Young's comment was not authorized by the church, to the best of my knowledge. It is true that only the prophet can receive revelation, but according to D&C 28:13 to actually be approved requires the "common consent in the church." That isn't to say that Brigham Young didn't think that, or try to enforce it, just that unless it went through and was approved by the church then it is not so. FWIW, his discourses are not taught as official doctrine today, thus my own conclusion would be that they were not approved at the time.

I will concede that whatever Brigham Young said from the pulpit was probably considered as much gospel doctrine to those who heard him, as to what most members think of Thomas S. Monson's talks today.

Since those who believed Brigham were wrong will they be punished for their wrong beliefs?

Could all those who believe Monson also be wrong? If these prophets can be so wrong, why call them prophets?

 

[abaddon]

The resurrected Lord visited and ministered among the "lost tribes" following His ministry among the Nephites:
3 Nephi 17:4 "But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for He knoweth whither He hath taken them."

Nope, never happened.

 

[tsig]

The resurrected Lord visited and ministered among the "lost tribes" following His ministry among the Nephites:
3 Nephi 17:4 "But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for He knoweth whither He hath taken them."

So all the Jews get is a holy flash?

 

[RandFan]

If these prophets can be so wrong, why call them prophets?

And THAT'S the point. Why on Earth did god not tell Young that he was wrong?

It's simple, the claim by Mormons is not parsimonious. The best explanation for Brigham Young is that he couldn't talk with god. No need to post hoc rationalize what he said. If this was all a part of god's plan then god is incompetent.

I go back to the cholera deaths suffered by the Mormon Pioneers. God we are told was interested in the welfare of Mormons. He told them not to drink hot drinks. Okay, why not also tell them to boil their water before drinking it?

It makes no sense. Put yourself in the place of god, would you tell a group of people that would take a journey that would put their lives in peril and tell them not to drink hot drinks but neglect to tell them to boil their water before drinking? Sure, tell them to let the water cool if you like but damn it, tell them to boil their water.

 

[Myriad]

If they boiled their water to avoid cholera, they might be tempted to make sinful hot drinks, because the water would already be so conveniently hot. Better to die of cholera than risk getting coffee stains on their immortal souls.

No, sorry, that's not it. It's because the notion of God as an omniscient dispenser of practical knowledge has proven to be mistaken.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Cat Tale]

Cat, the scripture does not mean what you think it is. It does not mean that doctrines are voted on either by members or the Quorum of the 12 or anyone else. There is no means to overturn the current prophets teachings. One must first wait until the prophet is dead and then the new leadership can then refute or distance themselves from the previous teachings.

I disagree. The scripture is clear that the church members must approve revelation, and yes, I can back that up. Before the 1835 edition went to press it was put to the church, "first as quorums, then as a congregation, to accept the book as arranged."

When President Kimball received his revelation on African Americans receiving the priesthood it was very clear what all steps were gone through. President Kimball received his revelation, he "presented it to his counselors, who accepted and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it... all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously..." It was then put to the general church population during the September 1978 General Conference, and unanimously affirmed.

So there are two situations where what was to become scripture had to be put through the vote. There are numerous other situations as well, but I honestly don't have time to hunt them all down. I didn't come here to be the main debater (Janadele should be doing this since this is her thread). Though honestly I don't mind, but I do have other things to do, but this is so much more fun!

BTW, if the prophet were to become ill, or in anyway act totally unbecoming to his calling we can always vote him out of office, or the President of the Quorum of the 12 can always step up to his spot. We get that chance every 6 months. If that doesn't work, we can just leave.

There is no means to overturn the current prophets teachings. One must first wait until the prophet is dead and then the new leadership can then refute or distance themselves from the previous teachings

Nonsense, Wilford Woodruff was not only teaching polygamy, but practicing it when he received the revelation to end the practice. The same can be said about African Americans getting the priesthood. So they don't try to distance themselves from anything, they say what they say when they feel 'compelled' to say it.

Bingo. I think what you are trying to say that a prophets teachings must pass the test of time.

No, I'm saying that the Journal of Discourses doesn't fit the mold of doctrine, unless you can show me where the 12 voted on it, and then the people voted on it. I'm saying people may have believed it, they may have believed it was doctrine, but there is no evidence that I'm aware of that it went through the required steps to become LDS scripture.

To me, doctrine is what's found in the LDS scriptures. Teachings are what we have in our church magazines, at general conference, etc. Perhaps not everyone breaks it down that way, but there is a large number of us who do.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The resurrected Lord visited and ministered among the "lost tribes" following His ministry among the Nephites:
3 Nephi 17:4 "But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for He knoweth whither He hath taken them."

And what about 2 Nephi 5:21-24?

 

[Pup]

And THAT'S the point. Why on Earth did god not tell Young that he was wrong?

It's simple, the claim by Mormons is not parsimonious. The best explanation for Brigham Young is that he couldn't talk with god. No need to post hoc rationalize what he said. If this was all a part of god's plan then god is incompetent.

That seems obvious to me, but I think it's worth looking at the church organization like any collection of people who need to cooperation. Given human nature, there are only limited ways of organizing and only limited outcomes.

A true democracy, with everyone voting on everything, becomes unwieldy after a certain size, and one still needs to deal with problem of those who won't willingly accept their loss, when the majority votes against them.

A dictatorship, monarchy or similar situation also becomes unwieldy if one person needs to make every decision, and there's the same problem of how to maintain obedience when giving an unpopular decree.

Yet both have their benefits. A democracy allows each person to feel they have some input, keeps a lone nut from making wacky decisions, and generally means that the majority will be strong enough to force their will on a minority even if the minority doesn't accept their loss.

A monarchy is efficient, simple, quick, and flexible. There's also a great incentive for a potential monarch to start one.

A republic or various similar forms of representative government tries to combine the efficiency of a dictatorship with the popular appeal of a democracy.

So despite Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's attempts to run the church like a monarchy, one can see it naturally tending toward a democracy, the way most pure monarchies eventually do. People will only go along with pronouncements so far, no matter how much the pronouncements are couched as orders that must be obeyed. Otherwise, the United States would be English colonies where everyone was Catholic. And there wouldn't be a Reorganized LDS, either.

Brigham Young certainly tried to do the dictatorship thing, but as the church grew, it just wasn't a sustainable model, because it never really has been, long term. It seems like with most power structures, over time the leaders are/were willing to adapt and give up some power to keep the rest.

Here's a telling example, reported in the Millennial Star, of how a form of democracy (or a republic at least) was at least nominally in place even under Brigham Young, but he was still trying to run it as a dictatorship as much as possible.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KCEEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA112-IA2&output=html

The question in 1844 was whether Sidney Rigdon should be allowed to continue giving revelations and be accepted by the church. They moved to cut Rigdon off from the church...

upon which President Young arose and requested the congregation to place themselves so that they could see all who voted... The vote was unanimous, excepting a few of elder Rigdon's party, numbering about ten.... Elder Phelps then motioned, that all who have voted to follow elder Rigdon, should be suspended until they can have a trial before the High Council.... The vote was unanimous in the affirmative.

In other words, everyone could vote the way Young wanted or suffer the consequences. But if everyone agreed that Young truly could speak for God, there would be no need to vote at all--God would simply say through Young whether Rigdon's preaching should be listened to and that would be that.

 

[RandFan]

Cat, can you pull quote the relevant passages? I know you are not lying but I think it important and that's your responsibility.

I disagree. The scripture is clear that the church members must approve revelation, and yes, I can back that up. Before the 1835 edition went to press it was put to the church, "first as quorums, then as a congregation, to accept the book as arranged."

When President Kimball received his revelation on African Americans receiving the priesthood it was very clear what all steps were gone through. President Kimball received his revelation, he "presented it to his counselors, who accepted and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it... all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously..." It was then put to the general church population during the September 1978 General Conference, and unanimously affirmed.

I will be honest, if true I did not know that. I have one problem in that I do not trust the Church when it comes to its history. I'll hold off on further comment until I can see the evidence.

So there are two situations where what was to become scripture had to be put through the vote. There are numerous other situations as well, but I honestly don't have time to hunt them all down. I didn't come here to be the main debater (Janadele should be doing this since this is her thread). Though honestly I don't mind, but I do have other things to do, but this is so much more fun!

I've never heard of such a thing. I don't remember ever voting on doctrine. You will need to supply the sources. I can't find them and the Mormons I know have never heard of this.

Nonsense, Wilford Woodruff was not only teaching polygamy, but practicing it when he received the revelation to end the practice. The same can be said about African Americans getting the priesthood. So they don't try to distance themselves from anything, they say what they say when they feel 'compelled' to say it.

You miss my point. Wilford Woodruff was the one who overturned the status quo (I don't believe in god). But even granting that there is a god and granting that it speaks to people, you've not demonstrated that anything overturned Woodruff. It wasn't the church members or the quorum that overturned anything. The "revelation" was self serving. There was much that Woodruff wanted from the Federal govt including statehood.

I reject your example. Woodruff didn't introduce the doctrine of Polygamy. Woodruff was the one who overturned Joseph Smith.

No, I'm saying that the Journal of Discourses doesn't fit the mold of doctrine, unless you can show me where the 12 voted on it, and then the people voted on it. I'm saying people may have believed it, they may have believed it was doctrine, but there is no evidence that I'm aware of that it went through the required steps to become LDS scripture.

Again I reject your assertions. You've not demonstrated that scripture must be voted on.

To me, doctrine is what's found in the LDS scriptures. Teachings are what we have in our church magazines, at general conference, etc. Perhaps not everyone breaks it down that way, but there is a large number of us who do.

You still haven't explained why someone as revered as Young, a man ostensibly talking to god got so much wrong and why was he so adamant that his words were scripture?

Cat, your evidence would not likely sway anyone who was not a Mormon. You want us to believe that god talked to Brigham Young but intentionally let Young spread false doctrine.

That's nonsense. I'm sorry but it is. We can disagree but I can't accept that a deity let his servant/prophet/revelator lead his followers astray.

 

[RandFan]

In other words, everyone could vote the way Young wanted or suffer the consequences. But if everyone agreed that Young truly could speak for God, there would be no need to vote at all--God would simply say through Young whether Rigdon's preaching should be listened to and that would be that.

Thanks Pup, good post.

IMO: A functioning democracy is not possible without freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. The Mormon Church excommunicates people who speak out against the leadership. IOW: Members were not allowed to say that it was immoral to not allow blacks to hold the priesthood.

IMO: There never was a democracy. There might have been an illusion of some sort of one at one time but IMO there is not even that now. There is no binding vote and it is in the open. What modern Democracy allows public pressure (emperors new clothes) into the voting booth?

 

[RandFan]

No, I'm saying that the Journal of Discourses doesn't fit the mold of doctrine, unless you can show me where the 12 voted on it, and then the people voted on it. I'm saying people may have believed it, they may have believed it was doctrine, but there is no evidence that I'm aware of that it went through the required steps to become LDS scripture.

I have a few more important question, do you think if Brigham Young had put his discourses to a vote that the members would have voted it down? I honestly don't know but was the decision to go to Utah put to a vote? What if someone had questioned Young's authority, what do you suppose would have happened?

Brigham Young said his discourses are as good as Scripture.
"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).

 

[tsig]

I disagree. The scripture is clear that the church members must approve revelation, and yes, I can back that up. Before the 1835 edition went to press it was put to the church, "first as quorums, then as a congregation, to accept the book as arranged."

When President Kimball received his revelation on African Americans receiving the priesthood it was very clear what all steps were gone through. President Kimball received his revelation, he "presented it to his counselors, who accepted and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it... all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously..." It was then put to the general church population during the September 1978 General Conference, and unanimously affirmed.

So there are two situations where what was to become scripture had to be put through the vote. There are numerous other situations as well, but I honestly don't have time to hunt them all down. I didn't come here to be the main debater (Janadele should be doing this since this is her thread). Though honestly I don't mind, but I do have other things to do, but this is so much more fun!

BTW, if the prophet were to become ill, or in anyway act totally unbecoming to his calling we can always vote him out of office, or the President of the Quorum of the 12 can always step up to his spot. We get that chance every 6 months. If that doesn't work, we can just leave.

Nonsense, Wilford Woodruff was not only teaching polygamy, but practicing it when he received the revelation to end the practice. The same can be said about African Americans getting the priesthood. So they don't try to distance themselves from anything, they say what they say when they feel 'compelled' to say it.



No, I'm saying that the Journal of Discourses doesn't fit the mold of doctrine, unless you can show me where the 12 voted on it, and then the people voted on it. I'm saying people may have believed it, they may have believed it was doctrine, but there is no evidence that I'm aware of that it went through the required steps to become LDS scripture.

To me, doctrine is what's found in the LDS scriptures. Teachings are what we have in our church magazines, at general conference, etc. Perhaps not everyone breaks it down that way, but there is a large number of us who do.

So if the twelve and the people approve it then it was from god but if they don't then it wasn't.

 

[jsfisher]

That seems obvious to me, but I think it's worth looking at the church organization like any collection of people who need to cooperation. Given human nature, there are only limited ways of organizing and only limited outcomes.

A true democracy....

No, this really doesn't make sense to me. We are not talking about what color to paint the entry or whether to let the Girl Scouts use the Sunday School rooms for a monthly meeting. This is supposedly the word of God as delivered through the (then current) prophet.

It doesn't seem like the sort of thing anyone gets to vote on.

 

[Empress]

I'm with RandFan on this one. I don't recall ever voting on policy. You voted that you could uphold people in callings, but I don't ever recall voting on anything else. Doctrine was just handed down, and the borg accepted it, even if it was 180-degree turn from what was being preached the week before. A very "We have always been at war with Eurasia" situation that the members never openly question.

 

[Pup]

No, this really doesn't make sense to me. We are not talking about what color to paint the entry or whether to let the Girl Scouts use the Sunday School rooms for a monthly meeting. This is supposedly the word of God as delivered through the (then current) prophet.

It doesn't seem like the sort of thing anyone gets to vote on.

But that's my point: I think it shows that deep down, even religious people don't truly believe they're hearing revelation direct from God through another person. Human nature still applies.

I have a few more important question, do you think if Brigham Young had put his discourses to a vote that the members would have voted it down? I honestly don't know but was the decision to go to Utah put to a vote? What if someone had questioned Young's authority, what do you suppose would have happened?

The RLDS church would have happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...)#Historical_differences_between_the_churches

 

[RandFan]

The RLDS church would have happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...)#Historical_differences_between_the_churches

Thanks. Exactly. Anyone who dared question Young would very likely and very quickly be tossed out of any organization that Young headed. Be it the "true" church or one that Young usurped authority over.

 

[Janadele]

It is not yet the time to bring forth to us the further knowledge and understanding that Brigham Young had. He was so far advanced Spiritually, and understood so much more of Eternal matters than do we, that only further revelation can make clear to us some of his reported comments which were not clarified before his death. The Lord has not given any further revelation on such matters, and therefore there are no teachings nor LDS Doctrine regarding them. I support Brigham Young totally as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator and do not consider him nor his truefully reported thoughts or teachings to have been discredited in any way.

 

[tsig]

No, this really doesn't make sense to me. We are not talking about what color to paint the entry or whether to let the Girl Scouts use the Sunday School rooms for a monthly meeting. This is supposedly the word of God as delivered through the (then current) prophet.

It doesn't seem like the sort of thing anyone gets to vote on.

Exactly, if you vote down your prophet's revelation do you go all OT on him?

 

[Empress]

It is not yet the time to bring forth to us the further knowledge and understanding that Brigham Young had. He was so far advanced Spiritually, and understood so much more of Eternal matters than do we, that only further revelation can make clear to us some of his reported comments which were not clarified before his death. The Lord has not given any further revelation on such matters, and therefore there are no teachings nor LDS Doctrine regarding them. I support Brigham Young totally as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator and do not consider him nor his truefully reported thoughts or teachings to have been discredited in any way.

Is that right, Janadele? So you believe the Adam-God doctrine that BY espoused? Or do you consider that to be one of his not-truthfully reported thoughts? It's well-documented. I'll remind you that your church today does not accept it.