Posted on 05/05/2008 9:24:59 PM PDT by sevenbak
Come on guys, enough already!
And your point is?
Don’t have time now - read this cr@p later.
PING
Hmmm.
Yes it does, if it directly contradicts. The Bereans were “noble” because they searched out “new revelation” to see if it matched the “older” revelation. (Acts 17:11) To not do that when something contradicts is to be ignoble.
From the article: Clearly the Bible, so frequently described at that time as “common ground,” was nothing of the kind—unfortunately it was a battleground.
Aha! Holland is in the Bruce R. McConkie camp, after all, eh? (McConkie later in his life didn’t want Mormons to challenge anything based on the Bible anymore…he wanted only the distinctive LDS “revelations” emphasized.) So the “McConkie” campgrounders are those who see the Bible as only a snake-infested swamp to stay away from.
From the article: So the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints.
Ah, the second shoe drops for the McConkie camp…Wow! What a “nifty” move…moving folks away from the Bible as their key revelational foundation in life! (This way, if the Bible causes "doubts" in the minds of Mormons, well, it wasn't "the ultimate source of knowledge for LDS," anyway, says Holland as he tries to innoculate the Saints from the Bible!!!
From the article: In this Church, even our young Primary children recite, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
I don’t think I’ve yet encountered an LDS missionary (of any lengthy convo, that is) who doesn’t get around to basically saying this same thing, citing Amos 3:7 as a proof quote to underscore the “need” for an ongoing living revelator: Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets. [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?”]
Ya gotta understand how LDS missionaries have often plastered this verse on others & how it’s used: The following is a bit of an exaggeration of the tone, but not much: “Naa, Naa, Naa, Naa, Naa…we have a 24/7/365 living revelator & you doe-on’t.” Now if I took the same angle Holland took with describing an ongoing “revelator and seer” I think folks would say “ho-hum…why do we need him again?” What do I mean?
Well, how often does somebody cite a previous sermon or Journal of Discourses reference by an LDS "prophet" or general authority only to be told, “Ya know, that’s not LDS canon!” or “You can’t hold an LDS 'prophet' or 'apostle' accountable for every obscure spiritual message he gives in public, can you?”
Well, now we’re really befuddled. Here, LDS have lectured us left & right about the need for living revelators & seers via general conference messages, Ensign mag articles, sermons, teachings, writings, etc. (So tell us again why it’s our issue if you consider what any “prophet”—dead or alive—has voiced publicly to be obscure?)
I think it’s downright disingenuous to hype up tone & content-wise to…
IN ONE BREATH…
“We’re the only church on earth that has a living prophet who speaks for God on all things”…
AND THEN IN THE NEXT BREATH TELL US…
“Yeah, we know all about that ‘speaking for God’ thing but you know…
(a) …”Nobody’s perfect…”
(b) …”these guys engage in countless public speculations…”
(c) …”we were hoping you wouldn’t notice all that much of what they’ve had to say ‘cause we assigned much of it to that round file over there we call the ‘obscurity bucket…’
(d) …”and, besides, nobody knows for certain if what they say has been recorded accurately…these are things that were just reported to have been said at one time or another…I mean, come on, they’re only God’s living prophet, president, revelator, seer & representative on earth…What? Do you expect us to have an accurate stenographer on hand to at least 100% accurately report what they’ve said in sermons & general conferences?”
So my questions? 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!”)
What good is an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God (like Young) if he inserts ourselves in place of the Savior’s blood a temporary doctrine of individual 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 an LDS “prophet” like John Taylor who emphasizes the LDS church as saviors of the world due to the practice of baptizing dead folks?
What we keep hearing from Mormons is along these lines: "What I don't understand is why anti-Mormons want to look up obscure things that someone or another was reported to have said at one time or another and then try to claim that their statement somehow is a core doctrine of the LDS Church. Tell me, is everything that comes out of the mouth or the pen of every pastor, preacher, priest, elder, minister, bishop, cardinal, reverend, or whatever of every other church the authoritative gospel of that particular religion? Is every book published by any Baptist minister now a core doctrine of the Baptist religion? Is every word that every Pope has uttered core doctrine of the Catholic Church? I don't understand why you set such an unreasonable standard for the LDS Church and its members."
Answer: It’s not us who have set the standard & built it up. 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 ongoing plan revelations and ongoing will revelations but when we do, you say, “Hey don’t be disappointed…99.99999999999% of what he has to say won’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!!!”
From the article: I testify that the heavens are open. I testify that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is truly another testament of Jesus Christ. I testify that Thomas S. Monson is God’s prophet…
I would like to address the other major doctrine which characterizes our faith but which causes concern to some, namely the bold assertion that God continues to speak His word and reveal His truth, revelations which mandate an open canon of scripture. …our friends in some other faiths shut the door on divine expression that we in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold dear.. Imputing no ill will to those who take such a position, nevertheless we respectfully but resolutely reject such an unscriptural characterization of true Christianity.
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)
Bottom line: Stop putting “prophets” up on the New Scripture-producing pedestal if you’re going to keep lambasting them as dried-up, antiquated sources of irrelevant obscure directives from the Lord (like Brigham Y. talking about individual blood atonement or Adam=God). Otherwise, it’s far too easy for you to distance yourself from them when they embarrass you; and then to elevate them to the highest post on earth when you want your PR ambassadors to be able to market, “See, we have God’s ONLY direct authoritative pipeline to earth.”
As for your references to our pastors, preachers, priests, elders, ministers, bishops, cardinals, reverends, churches, southern Baptist ministers, and even the Pope, you just let us know when they claim to be New Scripture-producing factories and then you can hold them all to the same standard. (The same can be said, minus the Pope, re: just letting us know that any ONE of these titled persons claims to be God’s ONLY direct authoritative pipeline to earth…then when that day comes, please hold them to the same standard!) Until that day comes, stop the double standards, the double-talk, etc.!!!
That all seems to have died on the grass outside the Carthage Jail.
This is “breaking news” why? In before moved to “religion”
Funny you should mention that. I was just wondering why (not really) the books of Mormon are written in King James English.
You would think after reading Holland's article that the LDS "Doctrine & Covenants" is just teeming (& pregnant) with all kinds of recent "God-thoughts."
How utterly mistaken. Even a 1918 occultic dream by Joseph F. Smith took another 60+ years, I believe, to be voted on as "Scripture." The 1890 "Manifesto" was never pretended by its proclaimer to be "revelation" from God (not worded as such; not described as such).
The only kinds of things in there are the Mormon god changing his mind for the time being about how promiscuous polygamy is; and whether or not the Mormon doctrine of skin color being a curse is enough to keep a black priestholder out of its priesthood. (And boy, what a coincidence that there just happened to be social & governmental pressure on each of those things to make an LDS "prophet" buckle?)
The mods have chosen to move all open LDS threads to the news section. It was originally posted in the religion forum.
From the previous thread:
Do Mormons believe:
1. Polytheism. There are many, many gods. Millions. And the millions of mormon men alive today will become a god and get their own planet and populate that planet.
2. The God of this earth was once a man on another planet who was a presumably a good Mormon.
3. Jesus was once a good earthly human/Mormon who has already attained godhood.
Also, what about the women? Do they become gods as well?
You're not suggesting that Joseph Smith, that poor illiterate farm boy from Vermont, actually had access to a copy of a King James Bible in 1830 are you?
That’s what they spoke and read. It was what they were used to. The BOM was translated into the language of the day.
I’m sure glad he didn’t translate it in San Francisco in the last decade. I’d hate to read that in Ebonics!
I'm sure alot of the African slaves in America didn't speak ebonics then. (I don't know why you'd drag ebonics into the discussion except as a red herring) But many of them did sing spriritual hymns to encourage themselves. I dont think any of them had "thee or thou" in the content.
I guess you missed “in the last decade”
So much for the tongue in check effort. It must be late, I’m off to bed.
G Night.
The King James language of 1604 was the language of 1830? That doesn’t make sense. Did Andrew Jackson use “thee” and “thou”?
Well, Mormons themselves make a distinction between how many gods they “believe in” versus how many gods there may actually be. (They would claim that even with there being additional gods, the fact that they don’t “believe in them” would negate polytheism for them).
The problem with this spin-doctoring is that whether one is worship-fully or only philosophically a polytheist doesn’t negate the definition. If you believe many true gods exist, you are, by definition a polytheist. Secondly, even if we go with their “game,” the fact that they believe the “godhead” consists of 3 gods means that even with these three, that is plural gods & that again = polytheism.
Also, I would assume that if they think they are godhood bound, and if you ask them, “Do you believe in yourself & your ability to attain godhood?” – if they say “yes” … well that’s at least god #4.
Spencer W. Kimball, an LDS “prophet” of the 70s, said to an LDS crowd: "Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose that 225,000 of you may become gods" (from The Ensign, November 1975 republished in 1980)
[This, despite the prophet Isaiah's plain words in his book--like Is. 44:8 & 43:10: Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (Isaiah 44:8) [Hey, if Isaiah's God doesn't know of any gods besides Him, that's good enough for me.] In the chapter before that, Isaiah gives a testimony whereby he knows of no gods formed before him or after him (Isaiah 43:10). Either the Mormons have a totally dunce god, a god who hit his head & suffers amnesia & can't forecast the future, or "Oops!" Smith stumbled over following thru on his read-the-bible-thru-in-a-year course and missed those verses prior to his book of the dead "Book of Abraham" & his King Follett sermon.]
Do Mormons believe: 3. Jesus was once a good earthly human/Mormon who has already attained godhood.
The Mormon Christ is but a "saved being"--a mere creature like dear ole Dad:
"Christ is a saved being” (McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 3, p 257) “Modern revelation speaks of our Lord as he that ‘ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth ‘ (D&C 88:6). Christ's rise to the throne of exaltation was preceded by his descent below all things. Only by submitting to the powers of demons and death and hell could he, in the resurrection, serve as our exemplar of a saved being, one who had placed all things beneath his feet. ‘I am Alpha and Omega,’ he said, ‘Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am, even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might subdue all things unto myself—retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment.’ (D&C 19:1-2.)” (McConkie and Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 1, p. 234)
(Please also see McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 238 where he said Jesus "Needs salvation"...”Came to earth to work out His own salvation”)
Also, what about the women? Do they become gods as well?
Yes. But only if they reach the highest level of Mormon heaven—the celestial kingdom. LDS don’t like to venture out “too far” on the limb of comments about goddesses above.
According to Elaine Anderson Cannon:As early as 1839 the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the concept of an eternal mother, as reported in several accounts from that period. Out of his teaching came a hymn that Latter-day Saints learn, sing, quote, and cherish, "O My Father," by Eliza R. Snow [she was, BTW, a “wife” of more than one LDS “prophet”]. President Wilford Woodruff called it a revelation (Woodruff, p. 62).
The hymn’s lyrics include:
In the heav'ns are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare!
Truth is reason; truth eternal
Tells me I've a mother there.
When I leave this frail existence,
When I lay this mortal by,
Father, Mother, may I meet you
In your royal courts on high? (Hymn #. 292 in LDS hymnbook]
(The reference, BTW, is to a “divine mother” not simply a biological mother.)
Do Mormons believe: 2. The God of this earth was once a man on another planet who was a presumably a good Mormon
Elaine Anderson Cannon added: In 1909 the First Presidency, under Joseph F. Smith, issued a statement on the origin of man that teaches that "man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father," as an "offspring of celestial parentage," and further teaches that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity" (Smith, pp. 199-205).
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland = ignorant horse’s ass
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.