Replies

Hi Colofornian!

OK Stop one moment and listen.

Look at the two paragraphs you typed here. They say opposite things.

Let's go back to the content of what I stated...and then I'll provide further context: To see how the Mormon church tried spinning Warren Jeffs as a continuation of 120 years of polygamous Mormon "prophets" yesterday, see Warren Jeffs and the abandonment of tradition [Real MormonISM].

The article I linked to was a Deseret News article. They are owned by the Mormon church. The journalist tried spinning why Jeffs & fLDS polygamy supposedly has NOTHING to do with its source -- 19th century Mormon polygamy.

Your original statement was that the LDS (deseret news) argued Warren Jeffs WAS a continuation of their prophets. That's actually exactly the opposite of what the article says. Your second statement is that the LDS (deseret news) WAS NOT a continuation of their prophets. That's an accurate representation of the article, but totally opposite to what you originally said.

If you stand by the newer second statement, then our argument is over, because I don't disagree with anything else you've said. Maybe you accidentally typed the opposite of what you meant originally.

You've flunked discernment and basic comparative logic.

That's really funny for you to say because I agree with everything you typed in your last message about Mormon history and theology.

Your original statement was that the LDS (deseret news) argued Warren Jeffs WAS a continuation of their prophets. That's actually exactly the opposite of what the article says.

So which is Warren Jeffs "guilty" of?
(a) That he's not "Mormon" enough for you?
(b) That he's not "prophet" enough for you?
(c) Or both? Or other?

Are you saying that the fLDS is not part of the broad umbrella of Mormonism?

Sorry. As I've pointed out earlier, we even have LDS posters like Edward Watson saying the following: (Disclaimer: I certainly disagree with most of his Edward's conclusions -- but here's what he told me on April 17, 2008):

Of course the FLDS is a Christian faith. Their denominational taxonomy, following the Religion-Branch-Family-Denomination matrix, is “Christian-Mormon-Fundamentalist Mormon-Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They do not belong to the Catholic, Eastern Christian, Protestant, or Anglican/Independent Catholic (Via Media) branches; they belong to the Mormon branch of Christianity, but in a completely different Family (Fundamentalist Mormon). Others in the same Family are the Apostolic United Brethren, Latter Day Church of Christ (Kingston Clan), and The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days). Get your facts straight. There are four families in the Mormon branch of Christianity [CJCLDS, Fundamentalist Mormon, Liberal Mormon, Prairie Saints] just as there are 20 denominational families in the Protestant branch of Christianity.

Watson says the fLDS "belong to the Mormon branch of Christianity." Now, I would not label them "Christian"; But at least this shows you we have Mormons who concede they are indeed Mormon.

Warren Jeffs was NEVER a member of the mainstream Mormon branch; therefore he is not a former SLC Mormon -- like an "apostate" or something; therefore, that classifies him as a present-tense Mormon in the broad sense -- one tied to a specific branch; and he has followers from that f Mormon branch who classify him as a "prophet." Lds Doctrine & Covenants 68:2-4 classifies it very loosely as to who can speak forth Mormon "scripture":

Jeffs was ordained into a Mormon priesthood that extends backward to Joseph Smith. This priesthood (v. 2) is said to be one whereby "whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord..." (D&C 68:4)

So tell us Mount Athos, how long have you been sorting through all the weed seeds of Mormonism to determine which ones of them are true "Mormons" -- and which ones aren't?

Let's try another analogy:

The Presbyterian - USA church ordains homosexual pastors -- as does the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. By all means, distinguish away between PC-USA & the conservative PCA; or distinguish away the ELCA from conservative Lutheran bodies which don't ordain homosexuals.

But don't try scrubbing the paint so much that you begin to argue, Athos with somebody who references a homosexual Presbyterian or Lutheran pastor as either Presbyterian or Lutheran or if they are pastors or not. Of course they are!

The identity on both counts stick! And in those cases, what would make for an even better parallel would be if the Bible specifically called for homosexual pastors -- say Revelation 23 or something -- and these liberals ordaining homosexuals would be arguing that THEY were the true original adherents to Revelation 23...whereas the rest of the Presbyterians or Lutherans veered from adhering to Revelation 23.

IOW, if anybody has the "rights" to maintain that they are the original adherents and fulfillers of what it means to be a "D&C 132 revelation celestial Mormon," it's the fundamentalists! 'Tis the mainstreamers that have tilted & wilted in following Joseph Smith's course!

The true canonized-following Mormons are the fLDS. [FR poster P-Marlowe used to reference the fLDS as oLDS (for original) -- vs. the mLDS (mainstream).]

What you don't realize Mount Athos, is that you have come walking right into the midst of a mine field of Mormonism:

* The fLDS claim original possession of the original doctrine of Joseph Smith (polygamy);
* The small Temple Lot segment of Mormonism claim original possession of the plot of land Joseph Smith designated for the Mormon Jesus to return (Independence, MO).
* The Community of Christ (RLDS) claim possession of the original rewrite of the Bible Joseph Smith did (they have the copywright)
* The Salt Lake City Ldsers claim possession of the whole schebang just because they are the biggest, most well-organized, and have the biggest clout/muscle.

But they haven't been able to overpower Temple Lot and take over that prophesy of Joseph Smith, now have they? (All they've done is purchase land nearby--just southeast of Temple Lot). I guess the Mormon Jesus will return to Temple Lot; and for you to come along and say, "No, they won't" would be tantamount to trying to sort out who will be the true recipients of the true Mormon Jesus -- and who won't. (And that's what you've done -- equivalency wise -- on this thread)

And the SLC Mormons haven't been able to overpower the RLDS in taking over copyright to the JST (Joseph Smith version of the KJV). I guess this part of "Mormon prophetic revelation" resides with the RLDS; and for you to come along and say, "Nope. I won't recognize the RLDS version of the Bible as 'mainstream Mormon' ONLY because the SLC gang doesn't own the copyright" would be ludicrous.

You've done the same thing with the Mormon "prophet" tug of war as to who has bragging rights to being in the original line of descent of being true to the Mormon canon of "scripture" on polygamy!

Congrats, MA!

If you stand by the newer second statement, then our argument is over, because I don't disagree with anything else you've said. Maybe you accidentally typed the opposite of what you meant originally.

Athos, what if I had posted a link to a DesNews article contending that Joseph Smith's son -- Joseph Smith III -- should not be linked with Lds "prophets?"

What if I had hinted that not only Joseph Smith, III "continued" in Joseph Smith's lineage as a "prophet"...but so did...
...two of Joseph Smith's grandkids, Frederick and Israel -- both of whom also served as rLDS "prophets" like Joseph Smith, III...
...as did two of Joseph's great-grandkids, W. Wallace Smith and Wallace B. Smith...

Here, you can read all about those Smiths + the two newer rLDS/Community of Christ "prophets": History of the Community of Christ

You see, first wife Emma Smith didn't head West with Brigham & Co. They formed a new re-organized Book of Mormon-based group.

You see, Athos, there's been contention for 160 years as to who the REAL Lds prophets were to be upon Smith's death.

If you vociferously objected to such a "hint" -- that would show you weighing in and playing "favorites." You would be weighing in vs. FREEPER restorationists like John McDonnell and telling him to his face that, "No, to hint that these Smiths above or McMurray or Veazey were/are 'prophets' in the line of Joseph Smith is a 'lie' because the rLDS only represent 2% of Mormonism and they are an 'offshoot.'"

Well, what if I told you these restorationists think that Brigham Young & his gang of followers were the offshoots?

Are you willing to take sides in this squabble: Who was the true heir apparent to Joseph Smith -- like you've now done with the fLDS?

I just think you might want to be consistent; otherwise, it's pretty ease to 'beat up' on Warren Jeffs & his followers. Let's see how you don that weed-whacker when you start applying it to the Independence, MO-based rLds! (And these guys have never practiced polygamy, baptism for the dead, or becoming gods like the Utah Mormons!)