What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

[BigDaddy4]

If they are not authoritative then they are not 'doctrinal.'

If they are taught in their church, but not found in the 4 standard works, are they teaching false doctrine?

 

[Ironhold]

I'm guessing that a quote tag got fouled at some point and it's cascaded from there.

Beliefnet used to have that trouble all the time, especially after individual posts would begin to contain multiple rounds of quotes.

 

[smaneck]

If they are taught in their church, but not found in the 4 standard works, are they teaching false doctrine?

Or maybe they are just teaching something besides doctrine.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Or maybe they are just teaching something besides doctrine.

A supposed prophet of their church teaching something about the nature of God and or Jesus that is not doctrine?? Shouldn't that be a huge warning flag? This isn't about some local Sunday school teacher voicing his/her opinions. These are the leaders of their church who are supposed to be the mouthpiece of God.

Amazing how so easily things like this can be dismissed and it not set off warning alarms to some.

 

[smaneck]

A supposed prophet of their church teaching something about the nature of God and or Jesus that is not doctrine??

The Mormons can correct me if I'm wrong, but these are talks presumably recorded by someone else. That person could have heard wrong. Furthermore, my understanding is that prophets in the LDS are not like Prophets in Islam or the Baha'i Faith, i.e. they are not infallible. I believe only the direct revelations they receive constitute doctrine. Then and only then can they be considered mouthpieces of God. (Again, Mormons tell me if I'm wrong about this.) Just because one of the Presidents of the LDS said Martin Luther King was a communist does not mean Mormons are required to believe this unless he said he had a revelation from God telling him that (which he didn't.)
In any case, if a doctrine is that important don't you think it would be found in one of their four canonical scriptures? Why not stick to those?

 

[zelosravioli]

If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason. This people, called Latter-day Saints, have been laboring now over forty years. Forty-three years last April,...' (Journal of Discourses, Brigham young, Vol 16 pg 161)

The Journal of Brigham's Discourses were highly regarded and transcribed directly from his own secretary. The Journal of Discourses was given to, verified, edited and approved by Brigham personally and it seems with much care (as Joseph also edited the history of the church). Their standard works do not have to match what they teach, as most all of the LDS doctrines are not found in the Book of Mormon or Bible. You have to understand they do supplement their daily readings of scripture only with 'approved' LDS books, and then deny these are influential or standard books.

Understand that a Christian can be so by trusting just scripture. It is not necessary to put faith in any man or organization. This is not true with Mormonism, you must believe Joseph was a true Prophet. The whole Mormon conception and idea is that the truth was lost, and they have reintroduced prophets to the church, which will restore the things which were lost. Thus the Mormons teach that 'many plain and precious things' were removed and lost from the bible. So you must trust them to restore the truth of the bible, and these two men Joseph and Brigham were the two who developed the Mormon teachings. So you are told to put your trust in these two men, or put your trust in Gods word. To deny either of the two Prophets is to reject truth according to Mormonism.

The Journal of Discourses, History of the church, and all the other books the church now refuse to admit as doctrinal show the true nature and history of these two supposed prophets. It is not so much only about their doctrine, but 'who' these two were and 'how' they lived. We can see that they ruled as dictators using threats of divine punishment against even their own family members and friends. Both highly charismatic, they boasted of themselves and their supposed intellect, insulted all who would disagree, manipulated and controlled their environment. They both gained much money and power, and of course each had multiple multiple wives, including very young girls. And at the end of the day their doctrines teach the exact opposite of scripture, and are found no where in actual church history.

So the question is: Do you trust God has kept His Word like God said He would, or do you trust Brigham and Joseph?

'It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in princes' (Psalm 118:8)
'Thus said Jehovah: Cursed is the man who doth trust in man, And hath made flesh his arm' (Jeremiah 17:5)
'The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever' (Isaiah 48:8)
'But the word of the Lord endures forever." And this is the word that was preached to you' (1Peter 1:25)
'For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished' (Matt 5:18)
'Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away" (Matt 24:35)

 

[Ironhold]

The Mormons can correct me if I'm wrong, but these are talks presumably recorded by someone else. That person could have heard wrong. Furthermore, my understanding is that prophets in the LDS are not like Prophets in Islam or the Baha'i Faith, i.e. they are not infallible. I believe only the direct revelations they receive constitute doctrine. Then and only then can they be considered mouthpieces of God. (Again, Mormons tell me if I'm wrong about this.) Just because one of the Presidents of the LDS said Martin Luther King was a communist does not mean Mormons are required to believe this unless he said he had a revelation from God telling him that (which he didn't.)
In any case, if a doctrine is that important don't you think it would be found in one of their four canonical scriptures? Why not stick to those?

Essentially, the church has a form of ex cathedra in place.

Leaders can say what they want, but if it doesn't pass muster with the formal canonization process then it has no weight.

Hence my note about checking the copyright of any given work: if it's not from the church itself, then it's not official.

 

[BigDaddy4]

The Mormons can correct me if I'm wrong, but these are talks presumably recorded by someone else. That person could have heard wrong. Furthermore, my understanding is that prophets in the LDS are not like Prophets in Islam or the Baha'i Faith, i.e. they are not infallible. I believe only the direct revelations they receive constitute doctrine. Then and only then can they be considered mouthpieces of God. (Again, Mormons tell me if I'm wrong about this.) Just because one of the Presidents of the LDS said Martin Luther King was a communist does not mean Mormons are required to believe this unless he said he had a revelation from God telling him that (which he didn't.)
In any case, if a doctrine is that important don't you think it would be found in one of their four canonical scriptures? Why not stick to those?

Nice job at explaining away! A prophet of God not knowing the nature of God yet is supposed to speak on His behalf? Crazy talk! lol

 

[BigDaddy4]

Essentially, the church has a form of ex cathedra in place.

Leaders can say what they want, but if it doesn't pass muster with the formal canonization process then it has no weight.

Hence my note about checking the copyright of any given work: if it's not from the church itself, then it's not official.

Which brings up the problem of the "extra" material. The lds church does not just post things from the 4 standard works on its "official" website, nor does it limit the teaching material to those 4. Quotes from the JoD as well as your leaders past and present end up on/in those places and, hence, "official" according to your above standard.

This is why the lds are deceptive about what they believe. The "as man is, God once was..." couplet as well as the God created Jesus the human with Mary through "natural" (i.e., non-parthenogenesis) means are not found in the 4 standard works, but can be found in various teaching manuals and on their "official" website.

 

[smaneck]

If Brigham Young approved the transcription then I would agree that they accurately reflect his beliefs. Whether or not they constitute revelation he received as a prophet, is an entirely different question. It seems to me to accept that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets is not the same thing as accepting that everything they said or did was from God; it is to accept their revelations are from God. So unless they indicate this is a revelation not merely "counsel" I don't think Mormons are required to believe it. But I would agree that from this it appears Brigham Young thought too much of himself.

If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason. This people, called Latter-day Saints, have been laboring now over forty years. Forty-three years last April,...' (Journal of Discourses, Brigham young, Vol 16 pg 161)

The Journal of Brigham's Discourses were highly regarded and transcribed directly from his own secretary. The Journal of Discourses was given to, verified, edited and approved by Brigham personally and it seems with much care (as Joseph also edited the history of the church). Their standard works do not have to match what they teach, as most all of the LDS doctrines are not found in the Book of Mormon or Bible. You have to understand they do supplement their daily readings of scripture only with 'approved' LDS books, and then deny these are influential or standard books.

Understand that a Christian can be so by trusting just scripture. It is not necessary to put faith in any man or organization. This is not true with Mormonism, you must believe Joseph was a true Prophet. The whole Mormon conception and idea is that the truth was lost, and they have reintroduced prophets to the church, which will restore the things which were lost. Thus the Mormons teach that 'many plain and precious things' were removed and lost from the bible. So you must trust them to restore the truth of the bible, and these two men Joseph and Brigham were the two who developed the Mormon teachings. So you are told to put your trust in these two men, or put your trust in Gods word. To deny either of the two Prophets is to reject truth according to Mormonism.

The Journal of Discourses, History of the church, and all the other books the church now refuse to admit as doctrinal show the true nature and history of these two supposed prophets. It is not so much only about their doctrine, but 'who' these two were and 'how' they lived. We can see that they ruled as dictators using threats of divine punishment against even their own family members and friends. Both highly charismatic, they boasted of themselves and their supposed intellect, insulted all who would disagree, manipulated and controlled their environment. They both gained much money and power, and of course each had multiple multiple wives, including very young girls. And at the end of the day their doctrines teach the exact opposite of scripture, and are found no where in actual church history.

So the question is: Do you trust God has kept His Word like God said He would, or do you trust Brigham and Joseph?

'It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in princes' (Psalm 118:8)
'Thus said Jehovah: Cursed is the man who doth trust in man, And hath made flesh his arm' (Jeremiah 17:5)
'The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever' (Isaiah 48:8)
'But the word of the Lord endures forever." And this is the word that was preached to you' (1Peter 1:25)
'For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished' (Matt 5:18)
'Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away" (Matt 24:35)

If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason. This people, called Latter-day Saints, have been laboring now over forty years. Forty-three years last April,...' (Journal of Discourses, Brigham young, Vol 16 pg 161)

The Journal of Brigham's Discourses were highly regarded and transcribed directly from his own secretary. The Journal of Discourses was given to, verified, edited and approved by Brigham personally and it seems with much care (as Joseph also edited the history of the church). Their standard works do not have to match what they teach, as most all of the LDS doctrines are not found in the Book of Mormon or Bible. You have to understand they do supplement their daily readings of scripture only with 'approved' LDS books, and then deny these are influential or standard books.

Understand that a Christian can be so by trusting just scripture. It is not necessary to put faith in any man or organization. This is not true with Mormonism, you must believe Joseph was a true Prophet. The whole Mormon conception and idea is that the truth was lost, and they have reintroduced prophets to the church, which will restore the things which were lost. Thus the Mormons teach that 'many plain and precious things' were removed and lost from the bible. So you must trust them to restore the truth of the bible, and these two men Joseph and Brigham were the two who developed the Mormon teachings. So you are told to put your trust in these two men, or put your trust in Gods word. To deny either of the two Prophets is to reject truth according to Mormonism.

The Journal of Discourses, History of the church, and all the other books the church now refuse to admit as doctrinal show the true nature and history of these two supposed prophets. It is not so much only about their doctrine, but 'who' these two were and 'how' they lived. We can see that they ruled as dictators using threats of divine punishment against even their own family members and friends. Both highly charismatic, they boasted of themselves and their supposed intellect, insulted all who would disagree, manipulated and controlled their environment. They both gained much money and power, and of course each had multiple multiple wives, including very young girls. And at the end of the day their doctrines teach the exact opposite of scripture, and are found no where in actual church history.

So the question is: Do you trust God has kept His Word like God said He would, or do you trust Brigham and Joseph?

'It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in princes' (Psalm 118:8)
'Thus said Jehovah: Cursed is the man who doth trust in man, And hath made flesh his arm' (Jeremiah 17:5)
'The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever' (Isaiah 48:8)
'But the word of the Lord endures forever." And this is the word that was preached to you' (1Peter 1:25)
'For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished' (Matt 5:18)
'Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away" (Matt 24:35)

 

[smaneck]

Nice job at explaining away! A prophet of God not knowing the nature of God yet is supposed to speak on His behalf? Crazy talk! lol

None of us knows the nature of God. If indeed there is a God, He is exalted above all our conceptions and all we know about Him is what He has chosen to reveal, period.

 

[BigDaddy4]

None of us knows the nature of God. If indeed there is a God, He is exalted above all our conceptions and all we know about Him is what He has chosen to reveal, period.

What we know about God has been revealed to the Jews and Christians through the books contained in the Bible. If the lds teaching that "God was once a man..." is not found in their doctrinal works (which includes said Bible), and has not been officially recognized as a direct revelation from God, then aren't they teaching heresy?

 

[Ironhold]

Which brings up the problem of the "extra" material. The lds church does not just post things from the 4 standard works on its "official" website, nor does it limit the teaching material to those 4. Quotes from the JoD as well as your leaders past and present end up on/in those places and, hence, "official" according to your above standard.

This is why the lds are deceptive about what they believe. The "as man is, God once was..." couplet as well as the God created Jesus the human with Mary through "natural" (i.e., non-parthenogenesis) means are not found in the 4 standard works, but can be found in various teaching manuals and on their "official" website.

If they can be publicly accessed on the church's website, then how are we being deceptive about them?

 

[smaneck]

What we know about God has been revealed to the Jews and Christians through the books contained in the Bible. If the lds teaching that "God was once a man..." is not found in their doctrinal works (which includes said Bible), and has not been officially recognized as a direct revelation from God, then aren't they teaching heresy?

Except the Bible does talk about God walking with Adam in the Garden. What's that about? It seems to me that what the Mormons have done is gone back to the older, more anthropomorphic concepts of God. But those conceptions are found in the Bible.

 

[A New Dawn]

The Mormons can correct me if I'm wrong, but these are talks presumably recorded by someone else. That person could have heard wrong. Furthermore, my understanding is that prophets in the LDS are not like Prophets in Islam or the Baha'i Faith, i.e. they are not infallible. I believe only the direct revelations they receive constitute doctrine. Then and only then can they be considered mouthpieces of God. (Again, Mormons tell me if I'm wrong about this.) Just because one of the Presidents of the LDS said Martin Luther King was a communist does not mean Mormons are required to believe this unless he said he had a revelation from God telling him that (which he didn't.)
In any case, if a doctrine is that important don't you think it would be found in one of their four canonical scriptures? Why not stick to those?

They had assigned scribes taking notes. Generally 4 or 5 of them for each service, so they could be fairly certain that they had a record of the whole sermon.

 

[fatboys]

They had assigned scribes taking notes. Generally 4 or 5 of them for each service, so they could be fairly certain that they had a record of the whole sermon.

Could you show me that there were several scribes taking notes. I can't find it any where

 

[BigDaddy4]

If they can be publicly accessed on the church's website, then how are we being deceptive about them?

Not the website. The lds posters on this site who claim they can only be held to the 4 standard works as doctrine, or who cry out "We don't teach that!" when it can be found on the lds website and/or official lds teaching material. THAT is deceptive and dishonest. Probably qualifies for the lying for Jesus thread...

 

[BigDaddy4]

Except the Bible does talk about God walking with Adam in the Garden. What's that about? It seems to me that what the Mormons have done is gone back to the older, more anthropomorphic concepts of God. But those conceptions are found in the Bible.

Then you don't know the Bible, nor the nature of God as described in the Bible.

 

[smaneck]

What we know about God has been revealed to the Jews and Christians through the books contained in the Bible. If the lds teaching that "God was once a man..." is not found in their doctrinal works (which includes said Bible), and has not been officially recognized as a direct revelation from God, then aren't they teaching heresy?

I think the doctrine about God being a man is found in their doctrinal work. What I think is not there is this business about Adam being God. As for what is revealed in the Bible, my whole point is that the conception of God changes in that book over time. Initially He is conceived in very anthropomorphic terms. He walks with Adam in the Garden. He goes down to earth and up to heaven. He requires burnt offerings like the gods of Mesopotamia because that is the way gods ate. Initially the existence of other gods is not denied, the Hebrew people should worship Yahweh alone because He is the one who brought them out of Egypt and they owe it to Him. Only gradually does Yahweh come to be seen in universal terms and the very existence of other gods denied. The New Testament refines the conceptions of the divine still further.
My point is that the nature of the biblical God depends on which part of the Bible you are looking at.

 

[smaneck]

Not the website. The lds posters on this site who claim they can only be held to the 4 standard works as doctrine, or who cry out "We don't teach that!" when it can be found on the lds website and/or official lds teaching material. THAT is deceptive and dishonest. Probably qualifies for the lying for Jesus thread...

Sorry, but being found on a website does not make something doctrinal. There is a website where you can find Baha'i pilgrim's notes. That doesn't make them authoritative sources of Baha'i practice or belief.

Isn't there enough in the four canonical sources that you can find without having to resort to non-canonical ones ?