Special Report: Mormonism Besieged by the Modern Age

[Hamster]

A priest or minister having false theology is bad. The prophet revelators having false theology is religion-ending.

[Thersites]

A priest or minister having false theology is bad. The prophet revelators having false theology is religion-ending.

It's the difference between Johann Tetzel selling indulgences and an actual dogmatic proclamation that entrance into Heaven can be bought.

[nrajeff]

Racism was taught as doctrine in your Church.

Assuming it was, way back then, for a while: What do you want me to do about it? Resign my membership and join a church that has ZERO history of any flawed teachings ever being preached? Not even the 1st-century church of Jerusalem managed that.

Sometimes I think these attack threads are like a dog that decides to chase a car it sees driving down the street. If it catches the car, has it thought through what it's going to do then?

[Thersites]

Assuming it was, way back then, for a while: What do you want me to do about it? Resign my membership and join a church that has ZERO history of any flawed teachings ever gracing its doors?

Teachings don't grace doors

If by that, you mean a church that has never embraced falsehoods as official doctrine, then yes, that'd be a good thing to do.

[One Bad Pig]

Assuming it was, way back then, for a while:

Yeah, WAY back in the 1970's, and taught for almost all of your church's existence.

What do you want me to do about it? Resign my membership and join a church that has ZERO history of any flawed teachings ever being preached? Not even the 1st-century church of Jerusalem managed that.

Teaching as part of official doctrine is a far cry from someone teaching on their own authority - which is something you LDS here are quick to trumpet when non-Mormons bring up specific teachings from Mormonism's past that you want to distance yourself from. Don't be a hypocrite.

Sometimes I think these attack threads are like a dog that decides to chase a car it sees driving down the street. If it catches the car, has it thought through what it's going to do then?

Yes.

[Cow Poke]

Assuming it was, way back then, for a while:

We have clearly documented that it was, Jeff. And not just for "a while", but, as OBP so aptly pointed out, most of your church's existence.

What do you want me to do about it? Resign my membership and join a church that has ZERO history of any flawed teachings ever being preached?

Why the extremes, Jeff? This kinda sorta looks a little like maybe sorta kinda drama. Brigham Young was a racist, pure and simple. You made a statement about him being no more racist than the "average white 1850s American" was. Think about -- do you really want to compare your PROPHET with the "average white 1850s American"? Assuming, of course, that not all of them were even CHRISTIAN, that's not a very good comparison to a man who supposedly heard directly from the mouth of God.

Not even the 1st-century church of Jerusalem managed that.

You are applying a false standard, and I think you know it.

[nrajeff]

Teachings don't grace doors

I know--especially discriminatory ones. I thought of that seconds after I posted that post.

If by that, you mean a church that has never embraced falsehoods as official doctrine, then yes, that'd be a good thing to do.

I agree that it would be an ideal thing to do. But is such a thing possible?

[Thersites]

I agree that it would be an ideal thing to do. But is such a thing possible?

And the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

[nrajeff]

And the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

Too bad that does not equal "And there shall never, ever be a time when it will embrace any falsehoods whatsoever."

[roadwalker]

LDS has no doctrine regarding our prophets similar to papal infalliblity.

If a prophet is speaking specifically the world of God (and acknowleged as such) then it is doctrine and cannot be argued with.

However, our church leaders are men and subject to the foibles of men (no different than the prophets in the Old Testament or the apostles of the New.) We recognize that in their own lives they have different beliefs. For example it is well-known that prophet Ezra Taft Benson was a member of the John Birch Society. When he spoke as the prophet, such as during general conference, his words deserved consideration as if the Lord himself were standing there delivering them. But when he spoke outsode of that calling, his opinions were his alone, and certainly not a doctrine that we should subscribe to the views of the JBS.

[Cow Poke]

LDS has no doctrine regarding our prophets similar to papal infalliblity.

We're aware of that. Smith seemed to have a knack for fallibility.

If a prophet is speaking specifically the world of God (and acknowleged as such) then it is doctrine and cannot be argued with.

Until a subsequent prophet comes along and gives a different doctrine.

However, our church leaders are men and subject to the foibles of men (no different than the prophets in the Old Testament or the apostles of the New.) We recognize that in their own lives they have different beliefs. For example it is well-known that prophet Ezra Taft Benson was a member of the John Birch Society. When he spoke as the prophet, such as during general conference, his words deserved consideration as if the Lord himself were standing there delivering them. But when he spoke outsode of that calling, his opinions were his alone, and certainly not a doctrine that we should subscribe to the views of the JBS.

This is a huge dodge. For Brigham Young to be no better than "the average 1850's American", many of whom, presumably, were not even Christians, really brings his "prophet" status into question. Even a nominal Christian who reads the New Testament and does NOT claim to be a "prophet" would fair better than the "average 1950's American" with regard to knowing God's will.

[Adrift]

Until a subsequent prophet comes along and gives a different doctrine.

Islam actually has a doctrine for this called Naskh, which is basically a doctrine of "abrogation" (technically substitution) where when prophecies in either the Quran or other holy writings contradict one another a later prophecy overtakes a previous one.

The main reason for contradictions in the Islamic writings is that, when Mohammed was first starting his religion, he was attempting to teach a message of peace and inclusiveness in order to attract followers (including the "people of the book"). This is reflected in the earliest passages from the Quran. Folks in his hometown of Mecca thought his new religion was nutty, and harassed him and his followers, so he took off to Medina. In Medina, Muhammad resolved conflicting tribal disagreements and converted a number of pagan Arabs to Islam, but the Jews in Medina, a "people of the book" would not convert. Eventually Mohammad's message of peace was turned into a message of jihad. He formed a military, beheaded and enslaved the Jewish population in Medina, and then conquered Mecca and other Arab tribes who were then forced to convert. This is reflected in the far less tolerant later passages of the Quran. The Quran isn't ordered chronologically, so the date of passages are considered by context and tradition.

The doctrine of abrogation has been a major issue in Islam recently because Islamic "extremists" are basically following out their interpretation of later, and thus, authoritative prophecy.

I think the Mormon concept of prophecy shares far more similarities with the Islamic concept of prophecy than the Christian one, and this is really hard for Christians to get their head around... In Christianity, a prophet is only as good as his word, and that word endures. Even Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the teachings of the prophets, but to fulfill them. So we don't see in Christianity a replacement of prophecy every generation (or less) when public whim comes against the church, and no new revelation has been given since the closing of the canon.

In Christianity we even have tests for prophets... Their prophecies have to come to pass or come true. It can't allow others to go to other gods and serve them. It can't be of private interpretation. Those who gave prophecy were not limited by age or gender (God is not a respecter of persons), and often signs and wonders followed them. Prophecy edifies, exhorts, and comforts. It testifies to the law, the gospel, and of Jesus' incarnation. And last, but not least, Prophecy is known by its fruit.

What's odd to me is that, most people I come into contact with, even those who are not believers, would probably relate better to the Christian profile of a prophet than with the Mormon or Islamic one, and I think this is heavily acknowledged in popular fictional representations of prophets... When you watch movies like the Matrix, Star Wars, 5th Element, Dune, etc.. and they talk about "the ancient prophecy... handed down generation after generation...,etc.", they're almost never talking about something that changed every dozen years or so.. they're almost always referring to some sure word that was given by some wise sage that will be accomplished by the protagonist/s of the film/book/whatever.

[Cow Poke]

Islam actually has a doctrine for this called Naskh, which is basically a doctrine of "abrogation" (technically substitution) where when prophecies in either the Quran or other holy writings contradict one another a later prophecy overtakes a previous one.

The main reason for contradictions in the Islamic writings is that, when Mohammed was first starting his religion, he was attempting to teach a message of peace and inclusiveness in order to attract followers (including the "people of the book"). This is reflected in the earliest passages from the Quran. Folks in his hometown of Mecca thought his new religion was nutty, and harassed him and his followers, so he took off to Medina. In Medina, Muhammad resolved conflicting tribal disagreements and converted a number of pagan Arabs to Islam, but the Jews in Medina, a "people of the book" would not convert. Eventually Mohammad's message of peace was turned into a message of jihad. He formed a military, beheaded and enslaved the Jewish population in Medina, and then conquered Mecca and other Arab tribes who were then forced to convert. This is reflected in the far less tolerant later passages of the Quran. The Quran isn't ordered chronologically, so the date of passages are considered by context and tradition.

The doctrine of abrogation has been a major issue in Islam recently because Islamic "extremists" are basically following out their interpretation of later, and thus, authoritative prophecy.

I think the Mormon concept of prophecy shares far more similarities with the Islamic concept of prophecy than the Christian one, and this is really hard for Christians to get their head around... In Christianity, a prophet is only as good as his word, and that word endures. Even Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the teachings of the prophets, but to fulfill them. So we don't see in Christianity a replacement of prophecy every generation (or less) when public whim comes against the church, and no new revelation has been given since the closing of the canon.

In Christianity we even have tests for prophets... Their prophecies have to come to pass or come true. It can't allow others to go to other gods and serve them. It can't be of private interpretation. Those who gave prophecy were not limited by age or gender (God is not a respecter of persons), and often signs and wonders followed them. Prophecy edifies, exhorts, and comforts. It testifies to the law, the gospel, and of Jesus' incarnation. And last, but not least, Prophecy is known by its fruit.

What's odd to me is that, most people I come into contact with, even those who are not believers, would probably relate better to the Christian profile of a prophet than with the Mormon or Islamic one, and I think this is heavily acknowledged in popular fictional representations of prophets... When you watch movies like the Matrix, Star Wars, 5th Element, Dune, etc.. and they talk about "the ancient prophecy... handed down generation after generation...,etc.", they're almost never talking about something that changed every dozen years or so.. they're almost always referring to some sure word that was given by some wise sage that will be accomplished by the protagonist/s of the film/book/whatever.

VERY interesting, Adrift. Thanks. I'd like to see if any of the Mormons have a thoughtful response to this.

[nrajeff]

Why the extremes, Jeff?

Then you tell me what you expect me to do, once the car you're chasing stops and lets you "catch" it. What do you want the car to do now?

You are applying a false standard, and I think you know it.

What is the "true" standard as you feel it to be?

[Cow Poke]

Then you tell me what you expect me to do, once the car you're chasing stops and lets you "catch" it. What do you want the car to do now?

First, cut down on the drama. We're having a discussion. This whole "chasing a parked car" thing is obfuscation. Mormonism is NOT a "parked car", it is constantly moving and evolving. I reject the "parked car" parallel, and I HATE parallel parking cars!

What is the "true" standard as you feel it to be?

You jumped from "membership in the Mormon Church", which I believe is Chock Full o' False Teachings, to one with "ZERO history of any flawed teachings ever being preached". This is planet earth, Jeff, full of fallible people who make mistakes. There is REDEMPTION, however, and CORRECTION, and REPENTANCE... we can make mistakes and get back on track.

Rather than use this false standard of "seriously flawed" (which I believe represents the Mormon Church) vs. TOTAL PERFECTION (which we're only going to find in Heaven), you can start by finding a church that is MUCH LESS flawed, or that has a track record of coming back to the truth.

It's kinda like dating a girl and finding out she's a pathological liar... do you break up with her and find a girl who has never ever told a lie ever? Or would it be more reasonable to find a girl who is trying to genuinely live a Christian life, even though she has some flaws.