Could y'all help me with some "reputable" sources (ie - difficult for TBMs to argue the validity of) regarding the words of a church leader NOT just being "opinion" or the "spoken as a man, not a leader"?

I have the JoD quote from BreedEm Young about "never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture" but my spouse is interested in more CURRENT and solid references.

The good news is that DH is letting me talk and tell him what I am learning and finding. However, there is a huge wall of denial there - I don't think it is insurmountable, but I need to step in a very orderly manner to get around it. First, I need to 'prove' that everything these guys said/say can be regarded as doctrine or commandments rather than just opinion. From there I can show the contradictions and inconsistencies. At the moment, DH is still stuck in the 'God's word can change based on the circumstance' mode. He keeps giving the example of Nephi being told to kill Laban, which to me doesn't make sense to me (I mean, if an omnipotent God wanted Nephi to have the brass plates, why not strike Laban dead himself rather than making Nephi break one of His commandments?) But for some reason it makes sense to him - for the moment, anyway.

But if I can get around that, I will probably be able to crack his beautiful mind wide open...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2011 09:51PM by angelcowgirl.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/fourteen.shtml

Trie nummer sicks.

Sorrie bout the speling. Jus reeding that talk maiks my I.Q. goe down.

What an awesome talk! I think it should be extremely useful in debating apologists.

While I was thinking about this scary indoctrination - I mean, talk - it occurred to me:

According to his second point, we are to place our emphasis and faith on the living prophet rather than what the scriptures tell us. If this is truly the case, then why in the world are we constantly exhorted to read our scriptures on a daily basis? Wouldn’t it be better to read, oh, say, the Ensign daily instead?

I'm suddenly realizing just how much of Sunday School and seminary I slept through, lol.

His lips are moving!

But seriously, everything an apostle or president of the church says or writes is from god as long as he's still alive.

As soon as he dies then it was all just his opinion.

Good luck. For me this is one of the most frustrating things with LDS apologists.

Take a look at the instructions for LDS teachers to follow:

http://lds.org/manual/teaching-no-greater-call-a-resource-guide-for-gospel-teaching/11-11-keeping-the-doctrine-pure?lang=eng

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated: “I have spoken before about the importance of keeping the doctrine of the Church pure, and seeing that it is taught in all of our meetings. I worry about this. Small aberrations in doctrinal teaching can lead to large and evil falsehoods”

President Ezra Taft Benson taught: “What should be the source for teaching the great plan of the Eternal God? The scriptures, of course—particularly the Book of Mormon. This should also include the other modern-day revelations. These should be coupled with the words of the Apostles and prophets and the promptings of the Spirit”

President Harold B. Lee stated, “You’re to teach the old doctrines, not so plain that they can just understand, but you must teach the doctrines of the Church so plainly that no one can misunderstand”

Elder Spencer W. Kimball stated: “There are those today who seem to take pride in disagreeing with the orthodox teachings of the Church and who present their own opinions which are at variance with the revealed truth. Some may be partially innocent in the matter; others are feeding their own egotism; and some seem to be deliberate. Men may think as they please, but they have no right to impose upon others their unorthodox views. Such persons should realize that their own souls are in jeopardy”

So when a person is "called" and "set apart" to teach the gospel in an official church capacity, the above link gives the guidance.

Then take a look at what the apologists teach:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf

"Not every utterance by every general authority constitutes “official” doctrine."

"Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church.” This includes statements given in General Conference."

One of the most disturbing topics right now is the apologist writings about the location of BofM events:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1038/Dismissing-Book-of-Mormon-geography-inaccuracies

"The traditional LDS folk-belief asserts that the Lehites arrived to a nearly vacant New World, with the possible exception of some Jaredite survivors and the Mulekites. This tradition implies that virtually all Native Americans are descendants of exclusively Book of Mormon peoples."

Compare the above back against the words of a prophets:

Elder Spencer W. Kimball stated: “There are those today who seem to take pride in disagreeing with the orthodox teachings of the Church...

All indigenous people in the Americas were considered BofM people. That was just about as orthodox a teaching as any, from the days of Joseph Smith until the 2007 BofM introduction change. Now the apologists simply call it an LDS folk belief.

Apologists can disregard the prophets and deny the words of Christ as written in the D&C.

To wrap it all up, there is no official doctrine. The First Presidency and the Twelve remain strangely silent. Apologists run opinions through LDS owned media sources and at their own websites and publications. They are changing the church teachings so the CEOs of COJCOLDS don't have to announce a new revelation.

Wow, THANK YOU ALL.
All of this makes my head spin!
The fact that there is any contradiction at all on this matter is ridiculous.

A mormon double standard ?

Good that your husband is listening to you. Here are some to try on him.

All the best to you- Skeptic



TRUTH

Truth is absolute and eternal; it endureth forever. It never varies; what is true in one age is true in every age. (D&C 1:39, Ps. 100:5, 117:2)



D&C 1:39 For behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen.

Ps 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.


Ps 117:2 For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord.


Alma 41:8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.

The President of the Church will not lead the people of the Church astray. It will never happen. President Hinckley’s counselors sustain him fully, as do the Quorum of the Twelve, the Quorums of the Seventy, and the Presiding Bishopric. As a result, as I have said before, a special love and harmony exist in the presiding councils of the Church for our President and for each other. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7c8a6169b62fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
James E. Faust, “Called and Chosen,” Liahona, Nov 2005, 53–55



In Most cases it appears that the speakers depended almost entirely upon the inspiration from the Holy Ghost, and subjects discussed were intended for the greatest benefit of the Saints. J of D Vol 1 Preface



The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every right-minded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.
President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Vol.8.

Blacks being banned from having the Priesthood and attending the Temple.

Was this doctrinal?

Yes
If it was official doctrine then Black people still shouldn't hold the Priesthood.
If it was official doctrine then the second article of faith (men judged for their own sins) cannot be true.

No
If it wasn't official doctrine then the Prophets from Brigham Young to Spencer W Kimball lead the Church astray.

As a seperate note, the policy was reversed by 'revelation'. Erm, I don't think so. Spencer W Kimball told his apostles to research the topic and to bring him any scriptural basis for or agianst the Priesthood ban. There wasn't any basis for it. So the First Presidency prayed to Heavenly Father that they were reversing the policy and that if He didn't agree then He should give them a sign and they wouldn't go ahead. No sign came, so the policy was reversed. Does that sound like any description you've ever heard of a 'revelation'?

So Kevin,

Why have Prophets if we can't trust that they speak for God? And what the hell are we supposed to do when even the church says that they don't speak for God all the time? I know, I know, 'pray'. But then, we are just trusting 14 million people to know/interpret God's will. I thought God in his infinite wisdom saw the need for prophets to eliminate that process, so easily fraught with such peril!

Why is it so difficult for people like yourself to accept the logical conclusion: God isn't speaking to these guys!?

I remember Brigham Young saying something like, I've taught false doctrine from this pulpit and I pray that the Lord removes these things from the memories of the people who heard it.

We have four books in the canon. Things are added to it only very rarely. This reluctance to add to the canon is intentional and deliberate. For a well-read LDS believer, this really isn't an issue. We know, from our own experience and that of others, the fallibility of man. We claim one infallible Saviour, Jesus Christ. We have no official doctrine of apostolic infallibility. Some of our more fanatical members might say that everything spoken in General Conference is scripture, but this is not the position of the church. If I remember right, the RLDS adds their president's yearly general conference talk to their version of the Doctrine and Covenants, but we don't do that.

If you recall, even the Apostle Paul found occasion to scold the Apostle Peter (his superior in the early church hierarchy) for disrespecting the gentiles on one occasion.

I saw a documentary recently in which Henry B. Eyring, current 1st Counselor in the 1st Presidency, spoke about his father, the eminent physical chemist Henry Eyring, getting called into Joseph Fielding Smith's office and having a heated debate with him over matters of science and creation. JFS disagreed strongly with HE, but HE was completely unfazed. It was obvious that HBE, relating this story in the documentary, sided with his father, and of course, Henry Eyring was right. At the time, JFS was an apostle or in the first presidency, I can't remember. JFS later appointed HE to represent the church at some conference, so obviously, he didn't consider HE's opposing view to make him a less appropriate representative of the church. HE is considered to be a model Mormon, and now HE's son, HBE, is in the first presidency.

For another good example of the struggle to keep the opinion of a church leader from being interpreted as doctrine, see the Wikipedia article, "Mormonism and evolution."

The purpose of the church is to bring people to God. The important relationship is between the believer and God. The church, itself, is like a large tree encumbered with all sorts of fruit, some of it good, some of it bad, because, well, that's just how people are. Hopefully, we learn from our mistakes and become worth harvesting. I've learned from bad leaders to rely only on God and not on the wisdom of man. (I've learned from good leaders to help people and to be a better human being.) But it is important to remember that the purpose of church is to bring individuals to the salvation of God, not the worship or adoration of the church, itself. The church, itself, is just a vehicle. As stated at the end of Jacob 5, in the end, after the harvest, the vineyard will be burned with fire.

Doctrine or not, what kind of a church has an apostle who tells the world that American Indian children are becoming white from living the "gospel"? That was acceptable in the LDS god's eyes I guess, because after he said that, Spencer W. Kimball went on to become a "prophet".

Kevin, defend "modern prophets" if you wish but SWK's absurd claim was not because of his human failure. It was written in the Book of Mormon that such things white changes could happen and he believed in the church and its teachings. He was only following the "doctrine" that has since been changed on that subject.

I think just questioning that you can't figure it out--when it's official and when it could be changed to fit future needs--is a good wedge itself.

Just my thoughts: pose questions to him. Prompt him to "fix" your issues, rather than force information at him. Leave hanging questions and maybe he will try to solve the problem, finding it unsolvable. Most men are problem solvers. At the same time, have extra fun on Sundays with him, doing things that push the Sabbath boundaries as far as he'll let it go. The more fun he has, the easier the transition will be.

More excellent points, examples and references - this is a huge help! THANK YOU!

JesusSmith, I agree that the questions/contradictions alone are a wedge (for me, anyway!) My husband is a problem solver but only on certain things. He does not like confrontation or any kind of discomfort, so he tends to ignore and avoid anything that he does not want to deal with. He tends to think that any problems are on my end, and that an attitude change would make everything better. He also hates to read, lol, so I need to do all the research with impeccable sources and just summarize my findings for him. Now, if I could work football into it somehow... ;)

A few things to remember -- that I was taught that helped me figure it out:
1. only the living prophet speaks for the church
2. he is speaking officially when he gives talks and in the monthly Ensign message
3. the church is based on Modern Day Revelation, so it changes many things, particularly policies -
4. This is the catch all: if you have a question about opinion or doctrine, you are to pray about it.
5. one more: if what the prophet says turned out to be too stupid or factually bizarre, it's opinion! :-)

I'm guessing you didn't hear that stuff from the profit.

You hear that from members/apologists who know the history. There are a lot of members today who think everything that the prophet says is the voice of Gawd. I was taught in seminary that if jesus came to general conference he would say the "exact same things" as the people giving talks.

Here's the thing angelcowgirl. If your husband really wants to know what doctrine is to an apologist than he can look at this website http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html. The site talks about how profits are fallible, and that we shouldn't trust everything they say.

The site then says there are three checks and balances to determine if something is from Gawd. Canonized scriptures, Prophets and apostles, and personal revelation.

Let me show you why this doesn't work. I'll demonstrate with the Adam-God doctrine.

Brigham Young tells everyone that Adam is Gawd. He tells everyone if they don't believe it they are damned.

Heber C. Kimball, an "apostle" enthusiastically agrees and says "I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth—the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world."

Franklin D. Richards another "apostle" decides Brigham Young is right as well he states "the Prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that it is the word of the Lord"

*** OK so what does this show you, it show you that profits and "apostles" can be "wrong". Obviously we could go through a list of thousands of times that this happened.

So lets look at personal revelation. Did people feel the "Holy Ghost" about Brigham Young's doctrine. YES - at least according to them!

We assume that Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Franklin D. Richards all "felt the Holy Ghost" when they heard/taught the doctrine.

We also know that members said they felt the "Holy Ghost" confirm the truth of Brigham Young's doctrine. Thomas Bullock, the clerk for conference, said that during Young's sermon, "the Holy Ghost rest[ed] upon him with great power".

*** This shows us that personal revelation is bunk. This can be shown with numerous teachings, on numerous occasions.

So what are you left with. The "scriptures". How does that make mormonism better than any other church. Obviously it doesn't. In fact, in makes them look worse - because mormons believe that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are actual translations, which they're obviously not.

Good luck with helping your husband realize he's in a cult ;)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2011 02:38PM by Freevolved.

It was to me at the time. that was then, this is now. I have no belief in any of it now, of course.

I was an active believing member in what is often referred to as the "Golden Age" of Mormonism, before corelation, and a lot of other policies when we actually had discussions, studied a variety of subjects, could use a variety of music, etc., and had fun at lots of events all of which are discontinued.

It worked for me, in those days, as I had come out of a similar Christian Church that had a gym, a stage, lots of discussions, and lots fun events.

I never heard of an "apologist" when I was an active member. I don't think they were around much in the 60's to 80's in particular.
Only heard of them after I left the LDS Church, and even then, thought they were writing satire and playing OneUpManship! :-) Still do! LOL

I hardly recognize the LDS Church these days. I'm so happy I got out when I did.

From http://www.mormonthink.com/prophetsweb.htm#whatisconsidereddoctrine

The Church's website
Approaching Mormon Doctrine
SALT LAKE CITY 4 May 2007 Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four "standard works" of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church's purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."

Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, "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."

Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.

Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.

Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.


Our comment: That article on the Church's official website certainly makes it crystal clear what exactly constitutes Church doctrine - clear as mud!

Well, flippin' hell.

Approach it with the spirit? 'Flexibility' in meeting challenges? 'Misunderstanding of simple terminology'?

COP-OUT.

So, in other words, it's 'doctrine' when it suits them and makes them look good, and 'opinions' when it's not.

Well, two can play that game...