Replies

I recall a thread where Lds poster Normandy said:

the LDS church has never put forward … the doctrine of the LDS church [Normandy].

Poster Delacoert responded: 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...(I believe Ejonesie22 must have dusted off the microscope to read the Mormon legal fineprint that Paragon Defender often linked to!):

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, Normandy...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 some Lds posters so readily tosses parts of McConkie's prophecies into the waste bin -- as his leaders have modeled for him -- why, just do the same thing with ALL what Mormon leaders have prophesied through the years!

As other FREEPERS pointed out (see post #1], 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…”
(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?”

Note these seven post excerpts from Lds poster Jeff Head Mormonism: What the Latter Day Saints think of Islam [Indicator of how Mitt perceives Islam?]

What do we learn from Jeff as “excuses” why what Lds “prophets” and “apostles” are not to be readily believed in what they preach from the Mormon pulpit or what they write?

Lds FR poster Jeff Head's actual comments from: Mormonism: What the Latter Day Saints think of Islam [Indicator of how Mitt perceives Islam?]	Upshot of Jeff Head's commentary?
(1) ”These men were not perfect and they had their opinions like we all do on such things...” (Post #30)	Imperfect, opinionated men serve as Mormon “prophets” – just like us [So much for being elite mouthpieces for God who take care to speak more on HIS behalf than THEIRS!]
(2) "They do have their opinions, like we all do. "When moved upon by the Holy Ghost," then their words are taken as the counsel and direction you cite for the church and I agree wholeheartidly with that. When that is the case, the church is informed, policy and instructions are issued and the Church moves along accordingly..." (Post #36)	Opinionated men who offer counsel and direction – but not to be deemed as authoritatively official Mormon doctrine until IF (a HUGE IF) it's LATER (as in MUCH LATER) determined if they moved by the Holy Ghost. [ALL: Keep in mind that Joseph Smith's first vision found in the Pearl of Great Price Mormon “scripture” wasn't determined as “official scripture” until 1875...almost 40 years after the fact...and Brigham Young's D&C 136 didn't become “official” Mormon “scripture” until 74 years after the fact (1921). Joseph F. Smith's D&C 138 didn't become “official” Mormon “scripture” until 62 years after the fact (1981). For some reason, it takes the Mormon church between 40-74 years to determine if the Holy Ghost actually spoke thru one of its “prophets”...yet they keep promising a huge benefit is a “living prophet” who is on “real time” between God and man...if God's message can't be “officially” confirmed until 40-74 years after the fact, what do they do in the interim?]
(3) "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." (Post #41)	Jeff Head essentially says in the bold-faced portion – hey, listen to what our “prophets” and “apostles” say...but don't quote them... IOW, Lds public relations spokesmen and spokeswomen actually carry more “official” weight in what they say than do past Lds “prophets” and “apostles”!!! Wow! Just wow! Apparently Mormon PR spokespeople are the "final arbiters" of Mormon "truth" (who trump even deceased Mormon "prophets" and "apostles"). Elsewise, they wouldn't be the "filter" people have to go through to determine “official” Mormon "truth," now would they?
(4) ”Sorry, Godzilla, Gospel Principles is a book Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, it is not regarded as scripture. Not every word they speak or write is scripture and considered or taught as church doctrine, it is when they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost to do so...Are there things in Gospel Principles that the Church does teach as its doctrine? Yes. Are there things in there it does not? Also, yes.” (Post #46)	Yes, the “official” Mormon church book “Gospel Principles” has official doctrine in it; and unofficial doctrine in it, too...but, hey, Mormons aren't going to tell you which is which! (And that's the unofficial official word on this!)
(5) ”...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...” (Post #62)	When Lds “prophets” and “apostles” speak, you can't readily tell if they are speaking on the official “prophetic” mantle or not...could be just their opinions, which they're entitled to... (When, again, are they donning that mantle and moving beyond mere personal opinions? Um...we'll let you know...maybe...but that might not be “official” word until determined by a later group of Mormons sustaining whatever is being uttered now)
(6) ”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.” (Post #70)	You know we really can't trust what “prophets” and “apostles” say 'cause they're human...but some of what they say eventually makes it thru the “recognition-as-revelation” filter and when it receives official imprimatur, it's only THEN what they say is deemed 100% trustworthy
(7) ”...read the Church web site, it makes clear what the “Standard Works” are, right now, right here. They do not include the Journal of Discourses and officially, they never have. That’s just the truth...Do people gain good information about doctrine from them? Yes, of course. They are volumnous. I have a set myself which I read and use for reference quite often...there are a lot of very good things in there. But, are there are also some very clear and difinite opinions in there that are not considered doctrine by the Church? Yes, of course, you have shown quite a few. But the fact renmains, they are not the “Standard Works,” and not considered “scripture” by the Church.” (Post #93)	Even though other Lds officials have called the Journal of Discourses as “the fountain of eternal truth” (an Lds “apostle”), “one of the standard works of the church” (a First President), “exposition of Latter-day Saint doctrine” (the official Mormon publishing house), “the unmistakable authority of divine inspiration” (the official Mormon publishing house), etc....apparently Mormon leaders weren't really serving as daily “living prophets” whose very words could be trusted? Why? Because, per Jeff, their messages are so imbedded with their personal opinions, who can readily sort what from what?.

The key question then to ask of Jeff: When will the Lds church let us know that what past and present Lds “prophets” and “apostles” have said is specifically UNtrustworthy? (Crickets)

The clip makes mention of the Lds "Journal of Discourses."

What have Mormon leaders said about these messages from Mormonism's "General Authorities?"

(1) 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")

(2) So when grassroots Mormons tell us to disregard the "Journal of Discourses" as unofficial, consider this: Who ranks higher, grassroots Mormons? -- Or, an Lds apostle? What did Lds apostle Franklin D. Richards in the 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.

(3) Also...who ranks higher grassroots Mormons? Or, a member of the First Presidency who served in such a role to four different Lds “prophets?” What did this First Presidency official 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)

(4) What about Lds leaders within our lifetime? What have Lds leaders said about the JoD?

Well, on March 21, 1963, the Deseret News 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 we get from leaders re: the JoD? 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, e'en tho many grassroots Mormons will indicate these "Lds leaders" are mistaken re: their assessments of the JoD, note that...

...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..."

ALL: This DesNews Asst Mgr says before contemporary Mormons even opened their mouths on this subject, that they "know not what" you "are talking about."