Replies

Ah, yes. On the one hand, Lds tout they alone have THE "living prophet"...

But this funny thing happens whenever we tend to quote him...

Why, we Mormons doing cartwheels to avoid treating such statements as "truth."

As Godzilla likes to say, Mormon posters simply toss the old "prophet" "under the bus."

One of the better posts -- perhaps the "Post of the year" in this category -- came from Ejonesie22:

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....(This is not an official answer...)
Source: The Challenges of (Non-existent?) Mormon Theology Post #24

In this line of thinking, where Brigham Young once said he had never preached a sermon that couldn't be sent out as "Scripture" -- coupled with Mormon defenders who utter
"That's not Mormon doctrine"
"That's not official Mormon teaching"
"That's not canon"
"That's was someone speaking specutatively..."
We review the best 2010 FREEPER threads dealing with treating such history in a rather disparaging way.

(I mean, c'mon, yes, we easily toss away calendars, but to dismiss such history...well...tsk, tsk, tsk):
* "When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?"
* Brother Brigham forces the LDS reader to ponder some uncomfortable thoughts [321 replies]
* Orson Scott Card: Nothing to fear from the truth

From the Orson Card column cited at end of post #1: ...No actions of the Saints justified the way they were treated by their enemies, but some of their words and actions, magnified and spread as rumors, made many of the non-Mormon settlers feel justified in fearing the Saints and wanting to drive them out. It was a time of turmoil, with some of the most prominent church leaders turning against the Prophet and getting excommunicated in the process. Some of them signed affidavits that appeared to justify criminal charges against Joseph Smith. I took these problems to Professor Allen. Instead of telling me what was false and what was factual — which, under the circumstances, was almost impossible to ascertain — he instead taught me a principle much deeper and truer, which I could apply to all of LDS history. I don't remember now whether he actually said it, or whether I extrapolated it from his testimony and his calmness about the conflicting information from the Missouri era, but this is the principle I came away with: Whatever happened or didn't happen, Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God, and the gospel is true.

As I wrote when posting that column:

Ah, the “bottom line” of Mormonism:
#1 Don’t confuse me with the historical facts and historical realities about Joseph Smith, character-wise, or anything else. Why? ‘Cause I’ve already made up my testimony feeling-mind about that.
* Joseph Smith was a convicted glass-looker who was arrested again for attempting to shut down free speech in his community. (Repeat after me: “Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God…”)
* By even Lds apologists’ own admission, Joseph Smith slept with his semi-adopted 17 yo housekeeper as early as 1831…and by a dozen years later was adding on a wife per month…a dozen of them who were already (and still) married to other men! (Repeat after me: “Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God…”)
* Smith “translated” an Egyptian funeral document as if it was the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses. (Repeat after me: “Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God…”)
* Uh, could you please explain how Smith said in the Book of Mormon (Moroni 8:18) that “God…is unchangeable from all eternity to eternity” -- yet right before he died, Smith claimed “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see”?? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345) (Repeat after me: “Whatever happened...Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God…”)

#2 Tell us why again, Orson, that the “bottom-line” conclusion of Mormons or Mormon-wannabes is to focus on a mere imperfect man, Joseph Smith? Why is the burning-in-the-bosom testimony focusing on who the true “Prophet” of God is -- as if there's only one, anyway?
What? Do Jews focus on Isaiah to the steady “frontline” “bottom line” exclusion of the Messiah Isaiah proclaimed in Is. 53?
Is the original OT prophet of God consistently testified about to the exclusion of all other OT prophets?
Do Baptist Christians focus on John the Baptist to the “frontline” “bottom line” exclusion of Jesus Christ?

If you want to read Brigham Young quotes in all of their "glory," be sure to go to the link in post #1...including the original SL Trib article link found at the link.

From the article linked in post #1 about Brigham Young: “Brother Brigham” is not a book critical of the LDS faith, but its very plot forces the honest Mormon reader to confront two uncomfortable thoughts. How many of us, if we had lived in the time of Joseph Smith, would have believed a 14-year-old boy had been visted by Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ? And, a question perhaps even more difficult to answer, is: Had we been members of the early LDS Church, how many of us would have agreed to ditch our matrimonial covenants and pursue wives half our age? Would we have thought that was of God, or a product of lust? These are not questions that today’s Mormons ponder often. In fact, most of us have become quite comfortable scorning fundamentalist polygamist Mormons for their “sinful” lifestyles.

From the same linked article re: Youn: One day, out of the blue, “Brigham Young” appears to C.H. and tells him that the LDS Church has slipped into apostasy and that he, C.H., has been called of God to restore the Gospel. “Brigham” informs C.H. that polygamy must also be restored. “Brigham” leads C.H. to hidden away money in the desert west of Salt Lake City. The angel, using the same type of language as the Prophet Joseph Smith records in Mormon accounts, pushes C.H. to get things rolling. C.H. reluctantly agrees. He manages to convince his skeptical wife, and then follows the angel’s commandment to marry Satan-dabbler Sheila, who perhaps not surprisingly given her personality, accepts C.H.’s offer. Things start to spiral out of control when “Brigham” commands C.H. to take an underage ward teen, Cyndy, as a second plural wife.

Hmm...sounds like a 19th century story line...
...Brigham replaces an unnamed "personage"...
...$ instead of "gold plates"...
..."angel, using same type of language as the prophet" replaces gold plates using same type of language as KJV Bible (even though supposedly KJV published thousands of years after some of the BoM gold plate writings)... underage ward teen...well, that was a direct import...Smith's first plural wife was an underage ward teen living at their house. Even Lds apologists say Smith was sleeping with her by 1831.

Since "time" is the focus of today, perhaps it's "time" for the Mormon priesthood to embrace Joseph Smith's "prophesy" about this in its entirety!

'Twas a November day 1831 - 170 years ago...when Smith said:

...this is an ensample unto ALL who were ordained unto this priesthood...and this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are 'moved upon' by the Holy Ghost... [v. 4:] And 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...

Do Mormons catch the "shall be scripture" part?

Smith wasn't speaking to just the upper-etchelon "priesthood" parties...no, v. 2 clearly say "ALL" ordained unto the Mormon priesthood!

Any plain, non-esoteric reading of D&C 68:2-4 makes it quite clear that Smith was saying all Lds ordained priests have "scripture-factory" producing power and authority.

?Now IF that's the case, why are you able to focus on part of this verse -- what the Holy Ghost does -- but you, a Mormon who supposedly greatly emphasizes works, doesn't mention what Mormon priests are supposed to do when so moved -- and that is capture "whatsoever they shall speak" as new Mormon "scripture"??

Now why hasn't the Mormon church, the Mormon Melchizedek priesthood, obeyed D&C 68:2-4? (I'll attempt to answer that Q at the bottom)

In fact, why haven't we even seen the "First Presidencies" going back to Brigham obey this? Why, we'd expect at least them to be "scripture" factories, right? Where's all the new canonized "stuff"? (Tucked away in some granite vault in the Wasatch Mtns?)

Why do Mormons tend to only partially acknowledge that the Lord can reveal His will? (Verbally, yes; in ink, as new "scripture," no???)

And Mormons have the gall to get on Christians for not recognizing that God is done speaking?

So Mormons say they alone have the lone true "prophet" of the earth...
...and they are among the "remnant" that believes in continuing revelation...
...And, they say that their "priesthood" has this Smith charge to proclaim new "scripture" per D&C 68:2-4...
...but they don't...??? ...they've disobeyed for 165 years?

Now to answer why the Lds church hasn't obeyed D&C 68:2-4: Why? Because it's a false prophesy. The entire male church holder positions were never meant to be "scripture factories." Anybody who thinks that should be so hasn't thought through the bedlam & chaos that would create. The stife, the confusion, the rebellion, the lack of submission to leadership, the... (I could go on & on).

All anybody has to do is read about the Mormon murders by ex-Lds members (Ron & Dan Lafferty, 1984, in book Under the Banner of Heaven)...to realize the pitfalls of Lds "personal revelation" -- Ron Lafferty went from being a city council member in Highland, UT, a first counselor to an Lds bishop, youth activities' leader, to somebody involved in a "school of prophets" and convited of murder of his sister-in-law and her daughter, along with his brother. [Looks to me like they took Smith's D&C 68:2-4 very seriously]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

That the mormon god is or is not a sinner thingy...

The mormons believe that their mormon holy ghost did something so naughty that he/she will never get a body...

What the body would be for I dont know...I’m not a mormon...

As a Christian I know that the only time God had a body was when He as the 2nd Person of the Trinity, the Word, left Heaven where He had always been and came in the flesh as the LORD Jesus Christ..

However Jesus Himself told us that God is Spirit John 4:24