Replies

The disingenuousness of the Mormons lies in their refusal to acknowledge the teachings of their past apostles and prophets and their insistence that what is clearly Mormon Doctrine is either not Mormon doctrine or is somehow misunderstood by those who call them on it. It is endemic throughout these threads.[P-Marlowe]

Elsie, I'm glad you highlighted this. P-Marlowe THIS comment has to be--in a clear nutshell--the most basic but sharpest discernment I've seen on these threads.

You've put in one paragraph what I need many to say, and you say it better.

You know what? If you go on the official Mormon Web sites, this is exactly what is done from the top down.

(1)I've seen LDS leaders say that for Mormons, apostles and prophets are interchangeable.

(2) I've seen LDS HQ publish the statements of these apostles and prophets.

(3) I've seen the LDS HQ then publish these things as teachings in church curricula.

But then, when the world or the Christian world begins to question these same apostolic or prophetic statements, LDS leaders fall back. Example: LDS prophet Hinckley responded to a Time Magazine's question about God being once a man, referencing Lorenzo Snow's "couplet," His response? Something to the effect of "Oh, that's just a couplet." In other words he downplayed it.

Why? "God was once a man" is NOT in the LDS articles of faith. Any verse that says "God was once a man" hasn't been canonized in the LDS church.

You see, Mormons are caught between a rock & a hard place.

On the one hand: Just look at this teaching:

(1) Has it been taught firsthand by LDS teachers galore? (Yes).

(2) Has it been published in official teaching publications of the LDS HQ in SLC? (Yes)

(3) Does just about every Mormon believe it? (Yes) [So, I guess LDS really do despite what their apologists tell you, accept "folk-level" statements of faith & doctrine about God]

This explains why whenever LDS teachers at the local level thru the decades have taught somebody else that "God was once a man," we don't hear Mormons retort, "Oh, that's just speculation." 'Oh, that's not a canonized teaching." "Oh, you can't say that. If you want to know what the church believes, you need to go to LDS.org." "You know, I can understand why you might say that, but that's not official doctrine."

You see, when it comes to unofficial teachings that LDS are able to stomach, or if they don't do too much PR damage to the church...those teachings are OK to acknowledge minus the bevy of arm's length disclaimers.

But then this leads to gaping inconsistencies (the hard place). To hear the way LDS leaders & grassroots folks "write off" countless sermons & writings & teachings paid for by LDS, Inc. as "mere speculation" makes folks wonder why?

If they are LDS prophets and apostles who are...

(a) speaking on the record...

(b) speaking for God--LDS always cite Amos 3:7 as God's ongoing voice...

(c) covering spiritual matters...

...THEN please explain WHY some sermons & sessions & classes are trustworthy sources as spiritual teachings from God, while the rest need a battery of legal "speculation" disclaimers...kind of like the fastly-read-can't-understand legal disclaimers given at the end of auto & other commercials?

P-Marlowe, I think you and I would like to begin to see some consistent disclaimers from the LDS. LDS have annual general conferences. Next time LDS members in attendance hear something there they are not quite sure is right, they are to turn to the Mormon next to them & say, "Remember, what he(she) just said is NOT an article of faith nor has it been canonized by the church...it's just mere speculation. When I see it in my D&C, I'll believe it whole-heartedly. Until then, it goes into my quarter-hearted or half-hearted bin lest some anti-Mormon quote it to me and I can't defend it."