Mormonism: What the Latter Day Saints think of Islam [Indicator of how Mitt perceives Islam?]

Since many of your leaders, including your founding prophet, have said that Christian churches are evil do you agree that those same leaders were not speaking with “the Spirit of Christ”? If so, why do trust anything that those leaders said?

Turtlepower asks worthwhile questions here, Jeff

Jeff, what I've noticed about your pattern of posts is that at times you genuinely seem apologetic about what some Lds leaders have said.

Here's the problem: You're rarely specific. Which leader? Which comment?

You see, your vagueness (deliberate?) allows you to come across as humble, as arms extended without offending your leaders on your side.

But this is just about ALWAYS what Mormons do publicly. Embarrassed by certain statements, they may try to lower the official bar level of what some Mormon leader said, but they never come right out and critique the very comment under question as a false prophesy.

Why not?

I'll tell you why not: How many times does it take to become a burglar? (Once) A thief? (Once) A murderer (Once)

Likewise, how many false prophesies does it take for a Mormon general authority to be pegged as a false prophet? (Once)

And so grassroots Mormons like yourself -- not wanting to either peg any Lds leader past or present as a false prophet -- and wanting to stay on the "in" with its current leadership, resorts to vagueness.

What I'd like to see Mormons like yourself do, Jeff, just once is to actually condemn statements like what we see below as false prophecies:

Joseph Smith himself:

Joseph Smith, Jr.: “…all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels.” (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60).

Late 19th century:
George Q. Cannon, member of First Presidency with four different Lds "prophets": "AFTER the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, pg.324).

45 years ago:

Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie: McConkie says all non-Mormon churches are "...the great apostate church" [that's us -- the Christian church] "as the anti-christ...This great antichrist...is the church of the devil." ("Apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine p.40)

Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie: "What is the church of the devil in our day, and what is the seat of her power?…It is all the systems, BOTH Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel….It is communism, it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in ALL its parts. It is Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and Italy under Mussolini" (Millennial Messiah, pp. 54-55).

Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie: "The church of the devil is the world; it is all the carnality and evil to which fallen man is heir; it is every unholy and wicked practice; it is every false religion, every supposed system of salvation which does not actually save and exalt man in the highest heaven of the celestial world. It is EVERY CHURCH except the true church, whether parading under a Christian or a pagan banner." (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:551)

Note, per Mormon doctrine, the "only true and living church on the face of the earth" is the Mormon church (D&C 1:30).

BTW, the Doctrinal New Testament Commentary was cited by the official Mormon church as a commentary to 1 Nephi 14:10:
* The church of JC LDS: Seminaries and Institutes of Religion: Book of Mormon Student Manual: Chapter 4: 1Nephi 11–14 : Notes and Commentary
* It was also cited among study guides commonly used in the Mormon church as published by Cedar Fort out of Springville, Utah...in these two 2007 books:
* Randal S. Chase, Making Precious Things Plain: A Book of Mormon Study Guide: Volume 1: 1 Nephi-Alma 16 Cedar Fort, Springville, UT, 2007 p. 40
* K. Douglas Bassett, PhD, Doctrinal Insights to the Book of Mormon: Vol. 1: 1 Nephi through 2 Nephi Cedar Fort, Springville, UT 2007, pp. 62-63

27 years ago -- Official Lds church magazine, Ensign:
The “man of sin,” generally equated with Satan, would exalt himself over all that is divine and assume the place of God in the Church. Of historical and theological significance is the fact that in Paul’s prophecy the church structure survives. But God is not at its head, making that church—following the appearance in it OF SATAN—no longer the church of God....How appropriate, therefore, is Paul’s description of him sitting in the place of God in the church of the apostasía. Kent P. Jackson, Signs of the Early Apostasy, Ensign, December 1984 Signs of the Early Apostasy

This BYU professor is commenting on 2 Thess. 2:1-12 here...which Christian commentators reference as future. Lds leaders constantly reference 2 Thess. 2:1-12 as past tense -- evidence of the great apostasy...Jackson calls it a "drastic" apostasy. Lds doctrine is that it was total or all but a handful...and those handful were never "public."

Sorry, the quotation you cited was from Doctrines of Salvation, written by Joseph Fielding Smith. That was the book he wrote that I was referring to, and not the Teaching Manual, Gospel Principles.

FYI, this is the link to the Gospel Principles Manual lesson on the Atonement. Read it, there is nothing in there about what you cite.

Gospel Principles, The Atonement
http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-12-the-atonement?lang=eng

In addition, it makes it very clear that, “Jesus Christ is the oly one who could atone for our sins.”

...And no, the leaders do not teach false doctrine, because then they would be representing it as doctrine...but, like all of us, they are entitled to their own opinions when speaking or talking outside of their mantel as an Apostle or Prophet when moved upon by the Holy Ghost to speak for the Lord. When they are speaking in that manner, then the doctrine is passed down to the Church as I have indicated earlier.

As I said, these men are not perfect...but they none the less are called of God just as Peter, Paul and others were not perfect but called by Him to accomplish His purposes.

There is no attempt to hide anything here, Godzilla, and unfortunately, that seems to be your starting premise which you are locked doggedly into and insist on pressing by using terms like deception, hide, misrepresentation...in essence teloling lies. When someone starts from that premise, and will not listen to or consider anything someone else says, but is already calculating on how to “prove” it worng, there is little to be gained in discussing anything.

As I have said, my only attempt has been to explain to you what the Church actually teaches as opposed to what you, who not a member of the church, want to tell me and everyone else that the Church teaches based on your own research which seems to start off with that initial premise I mentioned.

BTW, people are not leaving the Church by droves. Statistics indicate that the Church continues to grow throughout the world failry rapidly, although that growth has slowed. But I expect it will continue to grow for the forseeable future.

Again, I’ll close with that...we’ve both made abundantly clear our respective positions.

I accept His atonement and grace in my life...

Jeff, do you realize both because of the Mormon leadership twisting and sheer negligence of teaching "grace" (and the Mormon overwhelming emphasis on obedience and works that earn your "spiritual bootstraps" style -- to use a fave Spencer W. Kimball phrase) how difficult it is for the average Mormon to even comprehend that word?

Hence, the lack of Mormon teaching on grace is one of two reasons why the ex-Mormon author mentioned in this other thread I posted today departed Ldsism: Local Author Weighs in on Debate About Mormons, Christianity

Once upon a time, from the BYU Religious Studies Center (here's the old-now-inactive link -- this pdf has been removed: http://rsc.byu.edu/rscFiles/pdf/newtestament.pdf)...Here, the author, Camille Fronk Olson, told of how difficult "grace" is as a concept for Mormons:

Although both ancient and modern scripture profess the necessity of Christ’s grace, the doctrine is often overlooked and misunderstood. For example, a missionary bore a powerful witness of Jesus Christ after being at the Missionary Training Center for only a week when she observed that she had never thought about the grace of Christ before beginning her mission. Since she had been at the MTC, however, she had thought of it and prayed for it every day. Why is the doctrine of grace so foreign to many of us? Why is it easy to recite from memory and explain that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:20) but difficult to teach “for by grace are ye saved through faith; . . . not of works, lest any man should boast”? (Ephesians 2:8–9). A man introducing himself as a member of the Church requested clarification on Nephi’s declaration, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23). After hearing so many differing explanations for the passage, he was puzzled."

Jeff, I know buried in the ton of Mormon legalism, tiny currents of "grace" can be found. I've seen it in 2 Nephi 10:24 in the Book of Mormon. I've seen it in a column by Mormon Jerry Earl Johnston...see below:

That's why we as Evangelicals stress…
…that God, not ourselves, is our source of righteousness (Romans 10:3)
…that Jesus Christ, not ourselves, is our source of righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30)
…that we’re saved by grace alone (Romans 11:6)
…that the true gospel is ALWAYS gracious & grace-filled (Acts 20:24)
…and that this all can be a point of agreement between Christians and transitioning Mormons…’cause even when it comes to alignment with God’s will, does not 2 Nephi 10:24 in the Book of Mormon say, “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is ONLY IN AND THROUGH THE GRACE OF GOD THAT YE ARE SAVED.

88888

Jerry Earl Johnston's column from the Deseret News January '10:

From the Johnston column: Over the years, Stephen E. Robinson's "Parable of the Bicycle" has become almost as well-known in Mormon circles as the recipe for s'mores. It tells how a young girl wants a bicycle but doesn't have enough money for it. So her father tells her to put in what she can, and he'll make up the difference. As it turns out, she puts in a pittance compared to what her dad pays. The premise of the parable is simple. When it comes to salvation, we contribute and the Savior contributes, but we can't fathom how much more he gives than we do. So taking any pride in our contribution would be folly.

Well, we can't fully blame Robinson, the BYU prof, for being so way off-base in his theology. After all, Robinson just took it from both the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants. In fact, two of the worst off-base Joseph Smith punditries occur in the Book of Mormon:

...ye are saved by grace, AFTER ALL YOU CAN DO." (2 Nephi 25:23) [Mormon, have you done ALL you can do? All YOU can do emotionally, physically, spiritually, etc.??? 'Cause this verse says free grace doesn't kick in UNTIL you do -- that's what the plain meaning of the words "AFTER all" equals.
And: "...may God grant, in his great fulness, that men might be brought unto repentance and good works, that they might be restored unto grace for grace, according to their WORKS." (Helaman 12:24) [In other words, the Book of Mormon teaches that God gives gifts according to whatever "bicycle pittances" men give to God! That free grace isn't so free after all, because men have to earn it "according to their works."

From the Johnston column: Now comes author Brad Wilcox with a fresh take on the notion. In his new book "The Continuous Atonement," Wilcox writes: "I think of the Atonement more like this: Jesus already bought the whole bike. The few coins he asks from me are not so much to help pay for the bike, but rather to help me appreciate it, value it and use it correctly." I like that a lot.

At the time I noted how a tiny bit of light was finally kicking on for Mormons! Jesus Christ paid for 100% of our salvation! When He died on the cross, He used a common phrase that meant in their day, "Paid in full" when He uttered the words, "It is finished." Mormons like to quote Phil. 2:12: ...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, -- all the while ignoring the same sentence in the next verse: 13for it is GOD WHO WORKS IN YOU TO WILL AND TO ACT according to his good purpose. Who gets the credit & the glory? God!!! HE works in us! He enables our will & actions to be in accordance with Him!

From the Johnston column: Like many Mormons, I struggle with the idea that we must be "selfless" while keeping our own celestial glory in mind. I don't do that dance well. Also, when I think about immortality, eternal joy and infinite wisdom, I realize my contributions to such things amount to a drop of sweat in the ocean -- maybe a molecule of sweat. But Wilcox gives us some fresh perspective.

John Ortberg talks a little bit about this in his book -- not the Mormon struggle but something both Mormons and some in Christian churches struggle with as well. Ortberg says that a serving/helping pattern can actually become a "signature sin." Why? Because of what Johnston just wrote about -- this idea of being "selfless" running simultaneously with keeping our own celestial glory in mind -- a "dance" Johnston wonderfully concedes he doesn't "do...well." And, of course, if we think we "earn" celestial glory by our own worthiness, then it's a very dizzying dance! This is what I call "boomerang good works" and what Ortberg says people do because they think they can get something back for the good works they do.

From the Johnston column: Evangelicals often chide Mormons for thinking they have the power to assist in their salvation. They say it's arrogant of us. But Wilcox -- like Robinson -- shows that humility and gratitude are the only honest responses, since we have so little to do with redemption. More than that, I like the way Wilcox pulls the emphasis from our "contributing" to salvation to our "appreciating" it.

I'm glad to see some Mormons were indeed listening. (It's a good communication trait to have). And it's not only "arrogant," but is prideful to think that we are responsible not only for salvation, but earning godhood. Johnston's words: ...since we have so little to do with redemption" are indeed glorious words to read from a Mormon writer! (Good job, Jerry! Be a true pioneer & speak it loud and clear up & down the Wasatch Range!)

From the Johnston column: Wilcox is full of good news. We're not so much partners in salvation as beneficiaries. Being asked to keep the commandments isn't about "chipping in."..The old Protestant hymn had it right along: grace, however one defines it, will always be amazing..

Yes. Pure "beneficiaries" indeed.

From the Johnston column: The American preacher, Jonathan Edwards, had it backwards. We aren't "sinners in the hands of an angry God." We're potential saints in his loving hands.

Well, I knew I wouldn't agree 100% with Johnston's conclusions. Frankly, why does he pit one against the other? Men are both what Johnston describes here -- sinners in the hands of a wrathful God...AND potential saints in His loving hands.

Sorry, the quotation you cited was from Doctrines of Salvation, written by Joseph Fielding Smith. That was the book he wrote that I was referring to, and not the Teaching Manual, Gospel Principles.

That same quotation is found in the teaching manual - a lds publication - that is where i got it from.

FYI, this is the link to the Gospel Principles Manual lesson on the Atonement. Read it, there is nothing in there about what you cite.

Jeff - my citation was from the section I posted. Please spare the twisting of my commentary. Go here

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-10-scriptures?lang=eng

And you will find -

Words of Our Living Prophets
In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “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” (Articles of Faith 1:9).

Care to reflect on your error?

In addition, it makes it very clear that, “Jesus Christ is the oly one who could atone for our sins.”

Yet the atonement there is only a resurrected body Jeff - nothing more and far less than what the Bible teaches in this regard. Have you truly repented of your sins Jeff? (D&C 58:43) If you are still sinning Jeff, you haven't repented. Jesus requires you to do your part according to mormonism - perfect life inorder to gain the 'grace'. Sorry Jeff - mormon atonement is substandard and ineffectual.

There is no attempt to hide anything here, Godzilla, and unfortunately, that seems to be your starting premise which you are locked doggedly into and insist on pressing by using terms like deception, hide, misrepresentation...in essence teloling lies.

No, you are sincere - though sincerely deceived by your chosen religion's teachings and indoctrination.

When someone starts from that premise, and will not listen to or consider anything someone else says, but is already calculating on how to “prove” it worng, there is little to be gained in discussing anything.

No rather it is legitimate to challenge - your own prophets have challenged the world to do so. Emotional and subjective 'feelings' are not proof when things can be tested - such as physical evidence of an extensive nephite civilization with advanced metallurgy, horses, chariots, old world foods, jewish (christian) religious system. Where is your civilization Jeff?

BTW, people are not leaving the Church by droves. Statistics indicate that the Church continues to grow throughout the world failry rapidly, although that growth has slowed. But I expect it will continue to grow for the forseeable future.

Not according to your leadership Jeff in a recent Reuters article citing LDS General Authority Marlin K. Jensen, he said "attrition has accelerated in the last five or 10 years." Further he stated it was "biggest departure since before the days of Brigham Young"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-mormonchurch-idUSTRE80T1CM20120131

Only 5 million ACTIVE mormons world wide - and retention rates of 25% hardly support your assertion of a growing church.

Colo, thanks for those quotes. The only good "works" that matter are the ones that occur as a result of any of us taking on ourselves the countenance of Christ, in becoming, through His atonement and grace, His image in our hearts and minds. We become an extension of Him, doing and saying what He would do if He were here, and accomplishing His will on this earth. Then we do things because it is natural...it is "us", and not a "dance" worrying about whether or not we are "earning" anything. As soon as we do "good works" for ourselves, in any way, worrying about our own glory and what we are "earning," they are no longer "good" works and they are powerless to save us in any case. James said, "Faith woithout works is dead," and I agree with that, but I believe he was talking about works in just this vein. Christ said, "if ye love me, keep my commandments." This presupposes that we really love Him and have taken upon us His name. Then His commandments are not a chore...they are not a ladder to climb...they are who we are. True faith begets true good works. They are the result of a true conversion and of taking His grace truly upon us. The church actually teaches this...but because we are human, it is easy to mis-interpret and mis-construe what it means. This happens in all faiths, btw, and is certainly not something that is unique to LDS. We should try and serve one another...help one another...take one another's burdens on and lighten that of those around us...but not because we are trying to be better than someone else, and not because we are trying to climb some kind of ladder...but because in Christ we have been remade and are doing it as a result of His grace and our heartfelt conversion and desire to be in His service. I'm off to the other forum now and working to try and get a higher votre count here in Idaho for Santorum when the time comes.

Statistics indicate that the Church continues to grow throughout the world failry rapidly, although that growth has slowed.

It's nust a cigar...

The only good "works" that matter are the ones that occur as a result of any of us taking on ourselves the countenance of Christ, in becoming, through His atonement and grace, His image in our hearts and minds. We become an extension of Him, doing and saying what He would do if He were here, and accomplishing His will on this earth.

Yup; just like JESUS did; when He allowed hinself to be baptized for Lazarus instead of raising him from the grave.

Christ said, "if ye love me, keep my commandments."

Just what ARE those 'commandments?

John 6:28-29 (niv)

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Acts 15

The Council at Jerusalem

¹ Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” ² This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ³ The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. ⁴ When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

⁵ Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

⁶ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ⁷ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. ⁸ God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹ He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

¹² The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. ¹³ When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon^[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

¹⁶ “‘After this I will return
   and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’^[b]—
¹⁸ things known from long ago.^[c]

¹⁹ “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰ Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹ For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers

²² Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. ²³ With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

³⁰ So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. ³¹ The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. ³² Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. ³³ After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. ^[34] ^[d] ³⁵ But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas

³⁶ Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” ³⁷ Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, ³⁸ but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. ³⁹ They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, ⁴⁰ but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. ⁴¹ He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

I was referring to the quote you cited from Doctrines of Salvation from Joseph Fielding Smtih.

You were talking about the quote concerning sources for scripture in the Gospel Principle Manual. We simply miscommunicated...there is no error to reflect on.

I have read what you quoted and pointed to in the Gospel Principles manual, and have no problem with it. As I said, when new scripture or revelations are decided upon (and the quorum to the twelve must prayerfully and through inspiration themselves agree unanimously upon them) it is them communicated to the whole church in the manner I indicated.

Not everything these men say or write is regarded as such. Only that which is recognized as inspired and moved upon by the Holy Ghost as mentioned.

Now, it goes without saying that there are members of the church who take everything they say as “scripture” because of their calling, and there is no doubt that they are thought highly of and listened to closely...but they are still human and have never indicated anything but that, and history and the doctrine itself that we as a church embrace, as pointed out by yourself in the manual, indicates that this is not the case.

Hope that helps.

Eventually Paul and Mark were reunited, and Paul gave Mark high praise.

And GWB said that Christians and Izzies worship the SAME God! Really?? Where did he get THAT from?? Oh, maybe his one world government daddy.

Here's the four words by which you instruct an ignoramus, beyond the shadow of the slightest doubt, that (true) Christians and Musselmen do not worship the same god:

Allah had no Son!

Write that on the back of your hand.

Dubya totally lost me when he defiled the White House by holding his first Ramadan dinner with M&Ms there, right after 9/11. He could have stopped this Clinton attempt to bring a heathenish toehold into the very President's home, by firmly saying "No!" right then and there. I couldn't vote for him in 2004. Where did he get it? From another "Methodist," Hillary.

As I said, when new scripture or revelations are decided upon (and the quorum to the twelve must prayerfully and through inspiration themselves agree unanimously upon them) it is them communicated to the whole church in the manner I indicated.

And those were communicated in the past through the teachings of your apostles and prophets - as pointed out by your own teachings in gospel principles which clearly does NOT include all the hoops you've described above. Fact is Jeff, there are plenty other citations I could go to in D&C that show their teachings to be headed and true to doctrine. Yet from all your discourse - you suggest that they are a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about most of the time. I have to wonder - where is the voice of the living prophet today Jeff? Monson has not contributed any new revelations nor hinkley before him. In fact the 1978 declaration was a negative revelation. You prophets have been silent except in the face of lawsuits and prision - then they get revelations.

Only that which is recognized as inspired and moved upon by the Holy Ghost as mentioned.

And past prophets, seers and revelators of the mormon church have declared the JoD to be such a collection of inspired messages - except when it impinges upon modern sensibility. Yet even that still goes against what you teach new mormons from Ch 10 of Gospel Principles. it states simply

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “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” (Articles of Faith 1:9).

Jeff - this is taught as acceptable doctrine - show me where this is happening today. What great revelations have been presented through these sources lately Jeff? The inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us eh? Except for it needs to be sliced, diced and sautéed first. All I see from you Jeff is a rejection of this stated and taught doctrine.

...but they are still human and have never indicated anything but that, and history and the doctrine itself that we as a church embrace, as pointed out by yourself in the manual, indicates that this is not the case.

Jeff, brigham young is on record stating that he NEVER preached a sermon that should not be considered scripture. Clearly HE indicated otherwise - and he has a university named after him. Thus you statement is not supported by the abundance of historic teachings and writings of your apostles and prophets.

“Not everything these men say or write is regarded as such. Only that which is recognized as inspired and moved upon by the Holy Ghost as mentioned.”

There are still at least 2 problems with the position that you have taken. First, even if you discount previous statements that your leaders said as NOT being scriptural, it still doesn't excuse the fact that they made the statements in the first place. Your position clearly attempts to diminish the prominence or authority of certain statements made by previous leaders. It's a convenient approach to hide embarrassing statements made by men that are highly regarded by mormons. However, it still begs the question, why did the leaders teach things that were false? Why did the leaders make the statements with no ambivalence; meaning they were convinced what they were saying was true? By admitting their statements are false, you are also questioning their character and judgment.

Also, statements by your leaders contradict the position that you have taken. For instance, Ezra Taft Benson stated, “The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.” Is that true? If so then mormon prophets can trump the standard works whenever they want. If not, then Benson made yet another false statement.

He also said, “The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.” Wow!! How are you supposed to know then when he is giving scripture? According to you,it must be “recognized as inspired”...meaning someone else needs to confirm the validity of the prophet's teaching first, before it can be declared scripture. What if a prophet said he spoke scripture, but others don't recognize it as inspired?

This whole notion of what is and what isn't scripture in mormonism is a farce. You pick and choose what you want to be “scripture” and discard statements that were clearly meant by the speaker to have scriptural authority. Your leaders have all made so many statements that were later discredited that none of them have any credibility.

The whole foundation of mormonism is a house of cards, built on the lies of men, who consider themselves to speak for God except when they don't. The contradiction of your leaders correcting one another is pathetic.

However, it still begs the question, why did the leaders teach things that were false? Why did the leaders make the statements with no ambivalence; meaning they were convinced what they were saying was true? By admitting their statements are false, you are also questioning their character and judgment.

Kowabunga dude - worth repeating.

Kowabunga dude - worth repeating.

Get out the Jello® nails!

No, Godzilla, we do not teach that the only atonement is a resurrected body. That comes as a result of Christ's resurrection and breaks the bonds of physical death, as the New Testament teaches, "for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ are all made alive." The church teaches that the atonement occurred in the Garden and on the Cross and that it is a spiritual atonement and a redemption from sin.

As I said, regarding the church growth, it continues to grow. It is not decreasing.

According to the National Council of Churches in 2008, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the second-fastest-growing church in the United States by growth rate.

The growth of the Church is pretty constant now at about 300,000 per year. This means, as the total numbers grow larger (about a million every three years) the percentage grows smaller. So what has declined for the Church is the rate of growth holdiong between 1 1/2 adn 2 1/2 percent for the last several years, down from 4-6 percent in prior decades. I believe 1857 was the last year the Church actually had a negative growth rate, where it lost more members than it found.

If you look back over the years at the baptimsal records of the Church for children whose families are members being baptised into the church, plus those who are baptised as a result of the missionary effort of the church, you find the following:

If you stretch it back further, given the records of the Church, you find the following:

Putting it into a table renders this:

LDS CHURCH GROWTH - HISTORY

Year	Membership	Number change	Percentage growth
1829	6	6	0
1830	280	274	4566.67%
1831	680	400	142.86%
1832	2,661	1,981	291.32%
1833	3,140	479	18.00%
1834	4,372	1,232	39.24%
1835	8,835	4,463	102.08%
1836	13,293	4,458	50.46%
1837	16,282	2,989	22.49%
1838	17,881	1,599	9.82%
1839	16,460	-1,421	-7.95%
1840	16,865	405	2.46%
1841	19,856	2,991	17.73%
1842	23,564	3,708	18.67%
1843	25,980	2,416	10.25%
1844	26,146	166	0.64%
1845	30,332	4,186	16.01%
1846	33,993	3,661	12.07%
1847	34,694	701	2.06%
1848	40,477	5,783	16.67%
1849	48,160	7,683	18.98%
1850	51,839	3,679	7.64%
1851	52,165	326	0.63%
1852	52,640	475	0.91%
1853	64,154	11,514	21.87%
1854	68,429	4,275	6.66%
1855	63,974	-4,455	-6.51%
1856	63,881	-93	-0.15%
1857	55,236	-8,645	-13.53%
1858	55,755	519	0.94%
1859	57,038	1,283	2.30%
1860	61,082	4,044	7.09%
1861	66,211	5,129	8.40%
1862	68,780	2,569	3.88%
1863	71,770	2,990	4.35%
1864	74,348	2,578	3.59%
1865	76,771	2,423	3.26%
1866	77,884	1,113	1.45%
1867	81,124	3,240	4.16%
1868	84,622	3,498	4.31%
1869	88,432	3,810	4.50%
1870	90,130	1,698	1.92%
1871	95,596	5,466	6.06%
1872	98,152	2,556	2.67%
1873	101,538	3,386	3.45%
1874	103,916	2,378	2.34%
1875	107,167	3,251	3.13%
1876	111,111	3,944	3.68%
1877	115,065	3,954	3.56%
1878	125,046	9,981	8.67%
1879	128,386	3,340	2.67%
1880	133,628	5,242	4.08%
1881	140,733	7,105	5.32%
1882	145,604	4,871	3.46%
1883	151,593	5,989	4.11%
1884	158,242	6,649	4.39%
1885	164,130	5,888	3.72%
1886	166,653	2,523	1.54%
1887	173,029	6,376	3.83%
1888	180,294	7,265	4.20%
1889	183,144	2,850	1.58%
1890	188,263	5,119	2.80%
1891	195,445	7,182	3.81%
1892	200,961	5,516	2.82%
1893	214,534	13,573	6.75%
1894	222,369	7,835	3.65%
1895	231,116	8,747	3.93%
1896	241,427	10,311	4.46%
1897	255,736	14,309	5.93%
1898	267,251	11,515	4.50%
1899	271,681	4,430	1.66%
1900	283,765	12,084	4.45%
1901	292,931	9,166	3.23%
1902	299,105	6,174	2.11%
1903	304,901	5,796	1.94%
1904	324,289	19,388	6.36%
1905	332,048	7,759	2.39%
1906	345,014	12,966	3.90%
1907	357,913	12,899	3.74%
1908	371,472	13,559	3.79%
1909	377,279	5,807	1.56%
1910	398,478	21,199	5.62%
1911	407,291	8,813	2.21%
1912	417,555	10,264	2.52%
1913	431,607	14,052	3.37%
1914	454,718	23,111	5.35%
1915	466,238	11,520	2.53%
1916	477,321	11,083	2.38%
1917	488,038	10,717	2.25%
1918	495,962	7,924	1.62%
1919	507,961	11,999	2.42%
1920	525,987	18,026	3.55%
1921	548,803	22,816	4.34%
1922	566,358	17,555	3.20%
1923	575,896	9,538	1.68%
1924	597,861	21,965	3.81%
1925	613,572	15,711	2.63%
1926	623,909	10,337	1.68%
1927	644,745	20,836	3.34%
1928	655,686	10,941	1.70%
1929	663,652	7,966	1.21%
1930	670,017	6,365	0.96%
1931	688,435	18,418	2.75%
1932	703,949	15,514	2.25%
1933	717,619	13,670	1.94%
1934	730,738	13,119	1.83%
1935	746,384	15,646	2.14%
1936	760,690	14,306	1.92%
1937	767,752	7,062	0.93%
1938	784,764	17,012	2.22%
1939	803,528	18,764	2.39%
1940	862,664	59,136	7.36%
1941	892,080	29,416	3.41%
1942	917,715	25,635	2.87%
1943	937,050	19,335	2.11%
1944	954,004	16,954	1.81%
1945	979,454	25,450	2.67%
1946	996,505	17,051	1.74%
1947	1,016,170	19,665	1.97%
1948	1,041,970	25,800	2.54%
1949	1,078,671	36,701	3.52%
1950	1,111,314	32,643	3.03%
1951	1,147,157	35,843	3.23%
1952	1,189,053	41,896	3.65%
1953	1,246,362	57,309	4.82%
1954	1,302,240	55,878	4.48%
1955	1,357,274	55,034	4.23%
1956	1,416,731	59,457	4.38%
1957	1,488,314	71,583	5.05%
1958	1,555,799	67,485	4.53%
1959	1,616,088	60,289	3.88%
1960	1,693,180	77,092	4.77%
1961	1,823,661	130,481	7.71%
1962	1,965,786	142,125	7.79%
1963	2,117,451	151,665	7.72%
1964	2,234,916	117,465	5.55%
1965	2,395,932	161,016	7.20%
1966	2,480,899	84,967	3.55%
1967	2,614,340	133,441	5.38%
1968	2,684,073	69,733	2.67%
1969	2,807,456	123,383	4.60%
1970	2,930,810	123,354	4.39%
1971	3,090,953	160,143	5.46%
1972	3,218,908	127,955	4.14%
1973	3,306,658	87,750	2.73%
1974	3,409,987	103,329	3.12%
1975	3,572,202	162,215	4.76%
1976	3,742,749	170,547	4.77%
1977	3,969,220	226,471	6.05%
1978	4,166,854	197,634	4.98%
1979	4,404,121	237,267	5.69%
1980	4,639,822	235,701	5.35%
1981	4,920,449	280,627	6.05%
1982	5,162,619	242,170	4.92%
1983	5,351,724	189,105	3.66%
1984	5,641,054	289,330	5.41%
1985	5,919,483	278,429	4.94%
1986	6,166,974	247,491	4.18%
1987	6,394,314	227,340	3.69%
1988	6,721,210	326,896	5.11%
1989	7,308,444	587,234	8.74%
1990	7,761,179	452,735	6.19%
1991	8,089,848	328,669	4.23%
1992	8,404,087	314,239	3.88%
1993	8,689,168	285,081	3.39%
1994	9,024,368	335,200	3.86%
1995	9,338,859	314,491	3.48%
1996	9,692,441	353,582	3.79%
1997	10,071,783	379,342	3.91%
1998	10,354,241	282,458	2.80%
1999	10,752,986	398,745	3.85%
2000	11,068,861	315,875	2.94%
2001	11,394,522	325,661	2.94%
2002	11,721,548	327,026	2.87%
2003	11,985,254	263,706	2.25%
2004	12,275,822	290,568	2.42%
2005	12,560,869	285,047	2.32%
2006	12,868,606	307,737	2.45%
2007	13,193,999	325,393	2.53%
2008	13,508,509	314,510	2.38%
2009	13,824,854	316,345	2.34%
2010	14,131,467	306,613	2.22%

Finally, here is a link to a talk given by an Evangelical leader in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake in 2004 (I believe). He is a part of a group, Standing Together, seeking to try and promote understanding and dailogue, despite his disagreements with various doctrines:

An Evangelical Leader Speaks in the Tabernacle

IMHO, such efforts on both sides help us work together and understand each other better.

Have a good evening.

The Journal of Discourses is not recognized or taught of as scripture for the church. It is a historical journal of many of the speeches and lectures those men gave, but they of themselves do not represent the doctrine that the Church espouses or follows. People should check with Church offical representatives and spokesmen and ask as regards these things before they quote those speeches as somehow being the offical doctrine of the church...because more often than not, particularly when quoted to try and find the most outlandish things that those men said many years ago, and to find fault with or tear down the church, they simply are not.

Lurkers, pay attention as to how Mormons engage in apologetics. They not only disrespect and scoff at their own "prophets" and General Authorities, they utterly diss these very resources produced by them -- and then diss even more statements made about these resources spoken by other General Authorities, etc.

Let's take the Mormon published Journal of Discourses, for example -- since Jeff Head dissed these documents on this thread:

Who authorized Watt to record the Journal of Discourses? (Brigham Young)
Who ranks highest in the Mormon church to carry out what he assigns? (The "prophet")

Who ranks higher, a grassroots Mormon like Jeff Head -- or an Lds "apostle"? What did Lds apostle Franklin D. Richards in the Journal of Discourses (JoD) preface of vol. 2 reference the JoD as?

The Second Volume of the Journal of Discources needs no recommendation to make it interesting to every Saint who loves to drink of the streams that flow from the fountain of Eternal Truth.

Who ranks higher Jeff Head or a member of the First Presidency who served in such a role to four different Lds “prophets?” What did a member reference the JoD as?

The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press..." (President George Q. Cannon, JoD, preface, Vol. 8)

What about within Jeff's lifetime? What have Lds leaders said about the JoD?

Well, on March 21, 1963, the Deseret News -- owned and published by the OFFICIAL Mormon church -- ran an ad from Lds church leadership about the JoD. The ad read: Every Latter-day Saint should take this opportunity of owning the written words of remarkable teachings from the LDS pulpit. To the clear and vigorous exposition of Latter-day Saint doctrine is added the unmistakable authority of divine inspiration."

What more can you get Jeff? Here church leaders were sqawking that the JoD is...
..."from the LDS pulpit..."
...exposes "Latter-day Saint doctrine" clearly & vigorously...
...presented with "divine inspiration...authority" -- and there's no mistake ("unmistakable" about that)

So, now you're saying, "Lds leaders, you're mistaken, after all?"

Three months after that ad appeared in the Deseret News, the assistant manager of the DesNews, Axel J. Andresen, wrote a letter about the JoD to a Mr. H.C. Combes dated June 12, 1963. In a few excerpts from that letter, Mr. Andresen said:

"...the 26 volumes of the 'JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES,'...If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about. I am sure that the individual is not anyone in authority -- certainly not among the General Authorities...May we also assure you that Deseret Book Company, being the only Church-owned book store, would not distribute literature on the Church, particularly anything as important as the Discourses of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church, without the approval of the Church..."

Jeff, this DesNews Asst Mgr says before you even opened your mouth on this subject, that you "know not what" you "are talking about."

Pretty sad for somebody like yourself who has held leadership positions in the Mormon church.

When we have Jeff telling us that...
...official publishings of the Mormon church...
...officially plugged by the LATER Mormon church publishing house (DesNews)...
...as well as officially plugged by Lds payroll people and gen authorities...
...aren't "official" after all...
...all I can say, Jeff...
...is what you're saying "officially" so????

Round II re Jeff's claim:

The Journal of Discourses is not recognized or taught of as scripture for the church. It is a historical journal of many of the speeches and lectures those men gave, but they of themselves do not represent the doctrine that the Church espouses or follows. People should check with Church offical representatives and spokesmen and ask as regards these things before they quote those speeches as somehow being the offical doctrine of the church...because more often than not, particularly when quoted to try and find the most outlandish things that those men said many years ago, and to find fault with or tear down the church, they simply are not.

I recall a few threads where FREEPERS Delacoert and Ejones22 made some rather interesting observations when they'd run across statements quite similar to what Jeff Head offered up here.

Delacoert:
Ya' don't say. LOL Has anyone ever noticed that most endearing Mormon quality of denying that this or that teaching is doctrine, when it is clear to everyone that IS doctrine?

ALL: Well, it's tough to beat to that excellent size-up provided by Delacoert. I think my all-time "fave" cut-to-the-chase summary of this common line of Mormon thinking we've seen over the FREEPER years was the following contribution from Ejonesie22...:

The 'classic' assessment from Ejones:
Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are consider unofficial by said officials. At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially. This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness. Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial. This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used here by haters cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site else where. Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially. I hope this clear things up for the lurkers out there. As I said the haters tend to make things complicated and confusing when it is all crystal clear.... Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2573705/posts Post #24

(Thanks again Ejones!...we need those fine-print navigators out there! ...and thanks, Jeff...we need cont'd Lds examples like what's you've provided on this thread to see how Mormons have learned to deflect the consequences of their leaders' words!)

How often have we seen posts through the years where somebody cites 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?”

Whenever a Mormon would offer up such an explanation, well, how befuddled could they leave readers? Here, LDS have lectured us left & right about the need for living revelators & seers & "prophets" & "apostles" via general conference messages, Ensign mag articles, sermons, teachings, writings, etc. (So tell us again why it’s our issue if Mormons consider what any general authority—dead or alive—has voiced publicly to either be dismissed or deemed obscure?

ALL: The lesson to be learned here? ANYthing ANY Mormon general authority has said can be readily dismissed. If one Lds "prophet" has said "No blacks allowed." Well, so what? A later Lds "prophet" just updates the teaching; reverses it, and moves on.

* Polygamy as a Book of Mormon "abomination" in the Book of Jacob, 1830? (Yup)
* Joseph Smith & D&C 132 institutionalizing it? (Yup)
* A manifesto frowning upon it (1890?) (Yup)
* McConkie announcing the Mormon Jesus will rebound polygamy into the earthly mix? (1966) (Yup)
* Lds leaders tossing McConkie's book "Mormon Doctrine" in the waste bin of republishing? (2010) (Yup)
* Polygamy going on near Kolob right now, per Mormonism? (Yup)

My advice? Since Jeff Head would seemingly quite readily toss parts of McConkie's prophecies into the waste bin -- as his leaders have modeled for him -- why not just do the same thing with ALL what Mormon leaders have prophesied through the years???!!!!

As Delacoert pointed out, 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 we are the living church which has restored the 12 apostles”…

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…” [Something similar to this statement has already been uttered by Jeff Head several times on this thread]
(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 prophets, presidents, revelators, seers, apostles & representatives 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?”

As I said, regarding the church growth, it continues to grow. It is not decreasing. According to the National Council of Churches in 2008, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the second-fastest-growing church in the United States by growth rate.

Jeff, even if we were to concede your older stats, that's what they are...older stats.

You know the number of Lds missionaries dropped off from about 60,000 to 52,000 several years ago -- about a 15% drop.

And look what came out about 10 days ago:
* Number of faithful Mormons rapidly declining (Salt Lake City ABC 4 News)
* Mormons opening up in an Internet world [& Losing members accordingly] [Mormon church owned Deseret News]
* Special report -Mormonism besieged by the modern age [Lds church is hemorrhaging in member losses] [Reuters]

Marlin K. Jensen, among the Top 16 in the Lds General Authority hierarchy, is in fact the very source cited in all three of the above articles.

ALL: An Lds general authority has more up-to-date stats that what Jeff has cited.

The above three articles coupled with other sources show that Mormons are losing members in at least THREE primary areas:

(1) Per the Reuters article linked above:
...census data from some foreign countries...show that the retention rate for their converts is as low as 25 percent.

(2) From the SLC ABC source linked above: Elder Jensen told the news outlet times have changed, and "attrition has accelerated in the last five or 10 years." Some church members ABC 4 talked to said they see the faithful leaving. ... From the DesNews article linked above: He began to hear the same thing from ordinary Mormons who had friends or family who were having problems. He also heard from people at BYU how it was a problem there as well. People were encountering things about church history and losing their faith...

IOW...it's not the "fringe" Mormons described above. We're talking about BYU/"ordinary" Mormons -- "the faithful" -- who are leaving in droves.

(3) Young adult Mormon males: ...according to a recent survey from Trinity College called “Mormons in the United States, 1990-2008” (Salt Lake Tribune, 12/15, p. A1), there appear to be many more Mormon women than Mormon men in the state of Utah. Consider these statistics: In 1990, a total of 53 percent of the Mormons in Utah were females (55% in the rest of the country). Eighteen years later, though, in 2008, there were 60% LDS females in Utah compared to 40% males (52% in the rest of the country). In other words, if you’re female in Utah, there’s a good possibility you will be sitting home on Saturday night. Imagine, this equals three women for every two men in Utah. Go to a Saturday night dance and there are 60 girls to only 40 boys.
Source: Two men for every three women? [Utah social ratios enough to re-institute polygamy?]