As a lawyer you should know you've just engaged in a tactic called "misrepresentation." You've just reduced the above to a Poster "C" said, Poster "T" said offset. (That's not the dynamic I introduced). I quoted "expert testimony" from a BYU prof who would seemingly be on a higher rank than your grassroots opinion. (Or are you critiquing Professor Robinson's position?)
So quit dodging. Either take issue with Robinson's statement, or I'll quote it back to you post after post (I'm getting tired of LDS totally dodging what he says).
The point is that opinions addressed in books, articles, etc. by LDS presidents and apostles are opinions. I would believe those opinions to be very close to the mark, but it is wrong to claim that they constitute LDS doctrine.
Why do LDS always try to keep having it both ways? LDS missionaries & LDS are always touting Amos 3:7: "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets"...
I don’t think I’ve yet encountered an LDS missionary (of any lengthy convo, that is) who doesn’t get around to citing Amos 3:7 as a proof quote to underscore the “need” for an ongoing living revelator [The way they often apply this verse, I’m often thinking, What? Now we have prophet-weathermen because the Lord won’t let it rain & snow without telling an LDS prophet of his “plan?”]
My question to you is: What good is an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God if he can’t properly ID who God is? (“He’s Adam.” “You’re kidding?” “Nope.” “Imagine that. Well, we’ll just have to name our most prominent university after you because of your amazing perception of who God is!”)
In our convo, it'd be more like: "He was once a man." "You're kidding?" "Yup.--Well, actually, I'm sure he was a man. But I'm sure they'll come a day when the Prophet in my place won't be so sure." "So, Lorenzo, why don't you add this to the D&C to clarify it for them?" "Oh, I DON'T KNOW. It's only a couplet."
Tell me, what good is an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God (like Young, Smith or someone named Snow who's Snowed you over) if he inserts ourselves in place of the Savior’s blood a temporary doctrine of blood atonement? (How trustworthy then is to apply Amos 3:7 in any absolute way to an LDS prophet?) Or since Young inserted our blood for Jesus’ blood in that doctrine, what about a Joseph Fielding Smith who emphasizes the LDS church as saviors of the world due to the practice of baptizing dead folks? (And I thought we only had one Savior of the world)
Joseph Smith said (paraphrase version here) it was the "first principle of the gospel to know for certain the character of God." What good is an LDS "prophet" even he can't for certain identify the character of God as an exalted man (or not?)
What’s ironic here is that it’s LDS who cite Amos 3:7 & say God doesn’t do anything without revealing His plan & will to His prophet. So you expect to tell us that we can continually look to him for church-wide ongoing plan revelations and ongoing will revelations?--yet when we look at the LDS “prophetic” track record of canonless PUBLIC statements by LDS “prophets”—and then when we quote them back to LDS—we tend to get qualifier after qualifier after qualifier from Mormons. They essentially say, “Hey don’t be disappointed…99.99999999999% of what Prophet X or Prophet Y had to say publicly didn’t even qualify as core doctrinal level statements let alone be sustained as a new revelation. What gave you the idea that everything that comes out of the mouth or the pen of every living revelator, seer, prophet, God’s only authoritative rep on earth is the authoritative gospel? Why we just can’t understand how you would misconstrue our build-up of an Amos 3:7 prophet!!!”
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that we buy what LDS criticize others for…Let’s say, “OK, heaven’s revelationally wide open…God still reveals Scripture…You’re telling us His mouthpiece is that old guy over there…Let’s take a look @ what he has to say since I guess we need to apply Amos 3:7 according to the way you’ve structured it…”
Two minutes later we say, “Wait a minute.” You say, “What?” “I thought you told me that the Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his prophet?” “And?” “Well, I just reviewed his general conference talk on the Lord’s will?” “And?” “Well, when’s this going to be added to the D&C as a new revelation?” “Uh, it probably won’t be.” “Why not?” (Silence)
LDS speak out of both sides of their mouth: On the one hand, they imply that LDS revelation from their "prophets" goes beyond what can be found in the D&C & BoM. The problem then becomes when plenty of other LDS folks around you are quite satisfied to lambast some deceased LDS prophets & apostles as dried-up, antiquated sources of irrelevant obscure directives from the Lord. [Example: Notice the cartwheels LDS grassroots jump through to not face squarely the sermonic words of a Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses]. I mean just look how LDS folks tend to distance themselves from the words of a Brigham Young or an apostle like Bruce R. McConkie (and LDS already say that apostles & prophets are essentially interchangeable) when these sources embarrass Mormons. And now you are backpedaling off of sermons made by Joseph Smith, teachings taught by Lorenzo Snow--teachings taught to Mormon children generation after generation after generation.
Yet, inevitably, we get zealous online Mormons like yourself, alongside LDS missionaries, who will elevate the current “prophet” to the highest post on earth when they want their PR ambassadors to be able to market, “See, we have God’s ONLY direct authoritative pipeline to earth.”
Bottom line: LDS, please stop putting “prophets” up on the New Scripture-producing pedestal. LDS folks can't keep saying out both sides of their mouth that this guy is the highest revelational post on earth--but whatever his predecessor said publicly was irrelevant, non-doctrinal, uncanonized, unofficial drivel. [You can't blame us for identifying a disconnect there, can you?)
However, many LDS leaders have taught that God was once a man, and became God the Father in the past (receiving exaltation). The scripture that once can point to in support of the theory is Christ’s statement that he has done nothing save which the Father has done. So if Christ redeemed mankind, then the Father must have done so as well (or Christ is lying).
Here's your problem with trying to use human logic to describe God. It's found in your statement, ...he has done nothing save which the Father has done. So if Christ redeemed mankind, then the Father must have done so as well (or Christ is lying).
Do you seriously know the difference between "doing" and "being?" "Doing" is a job. "Being" is alive. (Maybe you just sit back & listen to the Beatles, "Let it BE.") Just because you would emulate your father's actions doesn't mean you ARE him. Just because my dog follows me & emulates me and DOES some things I do...that doesn't make him human. Just because a pet can become an heir to a human fortune, doesn't make him human.
LDS scripture is our cannon, and we live by the words of the living prophets. Are you suggesting that we ignore President Hinckley in favor of what someone else has written?
You just got done telling me that if what an LDS "prophet" says is not canon, then it's not officially binding. So, yes. Because of this "out" that LDS apologists have established about the words of Young on blood atonement & Adam-God & "not letting any other man (besides himself) do it" re: impregnating Mary; etc; about the words of McConkie on not seeking a special relationship with Christ--on the fact LDS worship "3 gods"--on the "literal paternity" McConkie wrote re: Heavenly Father impregnating Mary; etc. then this "out" also applies to all uncanonized words tossed at you from any source. Every general conference talk...every Ensign mag article...every LDS curricula...Every LDS publishing house book. Any source which is not originating in canonized Scripture...it's NOT officially binding upon you or any Saint (by your own words). You can take it or leave it. You can toss it in the trash can. It doesn't matter. It's not official. It's not canonized.
>I quoted “expert testimony” from a BYU prof who would seemingly be on a higher rank than your grassroots opinion. (Or are you critiquing Professor Robinson’s position?)
Yes. To the extent that Robinson claims that LDS doctrine is that God was once a man, Robinson would be in error. Your call to authority is trumped by both LDS scripture and the current president of the Church.
>Why do LDS always try to keep having it both ways? LDS missionaries & LDS are always touting Amos 3:7: “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets”...
Correct. We live by the words of the living prophets (including our local priesthood leaders). That doesn’t mean that everything they state is LDS doctrine. There is a difference, and that’s where you make the error.
>My question to you is: What good is an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God if he can’t properly ID who God is? (“He’s Adam.” “You’re kidding?” “Nope.” “Imagine that. Well, we’ll just have to name our most prominent university after you because of your amazing perception of who God is!”)
The Adam-God theory has been roundly criticized. It has never been LDS doctrine. It has never been taught in any published instructional manuals. It was a thoughtful opinion of a man who was President of the Church.
>”first principle of the gospel to know for certain the character of God.”
True. But we don’t need to know what brand of toothpaste he uses.
>LDS speak out of both sides of their mouth: On the one hand, they imply that LDS revelation from their “prophets” goes beyond what can be found in the D&C & BoM.
The problem is that you equate the words of the leaders of the Church to be equivalent to LDS canon. And it’s not.
We live by every word of our priesthood leaders because God has chosen them. It’s hardly unheard of for them to be wrong. But our command is to obey them and the Lord will bless us in that obedience.
It doesn’t matter whether Peter was correct in commanding the early saints to give everything to the church. What was MOST important is that he was the priesthood leader, the baptized members were to obey that priesthood leader, and failure to do so condemned them (with God striking them down).
THe principle is one of obedience, not whether it is right to sacrifice your only son on an altar.
>Yet, inevitably, we get zealous online Mormons like yourself, alongside LDS missionaries, who will elevate the current “prophet” to the highest post on earth when they want their PR ambassadors to be able to market, “See, we have God’s ONLY direct authoritative pipeline to earth.”
The living prophet can be asked questions, and provide answers. And when he does so, you attempt to sidline it calling it a “jounralistic interview.” You are playing the game. Probably because you don’t understand how everything interfaces, and when people attempt to provide you with honest answers, you shut them down.
>Do you seriously know the difference between “doing” and “being?” “Doing” is a job. “Being” is alive. (Maybe you just sit back & listen to the Beatles, “Let it BE.”) Just because you would emulate your father’s actions doesn’t mean you ARE him.
You are interpreting the words of scripture. How do we know that YOUR interpretation trumps the plain meaning of the written word?
>You just got done telling me that if what an LDS “prophet” says is not canon, then it’s not officially binding.
You are repeating your arguments. See my explanation above.