Moon Not Inhabited!

[_Ray A]

Sounds like BY was right. So what is the problem?

He was right in his opinion that both the sun and moon were inhabited?

[_bcspace]

Sounds like BY was right. So what is the problem?

He was right in his opinion that both the sun and moon were inhabited?

Checkmate.

[_Ray A]

Checkmate.

Your question was to show where the prophets were wrong. You didn't make any qualifier.

[_Mike Reed]

He was right in his opinion that both the sun and moon were inhabited?

Checkmate.

Um... huh?

[_bcspace]

So if, as admitted, that this was BY's opinion, what is the purpose of this post? Is there a problem?

[_Mike Reed]

So if, as admitted, that this was BY's opinion, what is the purpose of this post? Is there a problem?

The point of the post is to give a newspaper clip that I thought would be of interest to others here.

[_bcspace]

So if, as admitted, that this was BY's opinion, what is the purpose of this post? Is there a problem?

The point of the post is to give a newspaper clip that I thought would be of interest to others here.

And why do you think they would find it interesting?

[_Mike Reed]

Besides... I think most nonbelievers would agree that Smith and Young taught many things that they claimed were based on revelation, but were based on nothing more than their own personal opinions. So your attempt to draw a distinction between doctrine and opinion (from our view) is a bit of a distinction without a difference. In other words... your approach is not a very effective apologetic.

[_Ray A]

So if, as admitted, that this was BY's opinion, what is the purpose of this post? Is there a problem?

The problem I see is that Brigham Young genuinely felt that what he uttered came from "the Spirit". From the same discourse immediately after the sun/moon comments:

This brings us right back to this Gospel. God has commenced His kingdom on the earth. How intricate it is, and how difficult for a man to understand if he be not enlightened by the Spirit of God! How can we understand it? O, we, have nothing to do but to humble ourselves and get the spirit of the Lord by being born of the water and of the Spirit; then we can enter into it. How is it if we are not born of the Spirit? Can the natural man behold the things of God? He can not, for they are discerned spiritually-by the Spirit of the Almighty, and if we have not this Spirit within us we cannot understand the things of God. But the most simple thing in the world to understand is the work of the Lord. What shall we do? Divest ourselves of great, big "Mr. I." Let him fall at the feet of good sound reason. What next? Humble ourselves before the Lord and receive the truth as He has revealed it, then we will be born of the Spirit. Then if we wish further blessings, be born of the water; then, if we wish further blessings, receive the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost; and if we wish still further blessings, live by every word that proceeds out of His mouth, that is spoken from the heavens, then things will be brought to our remembrance by the Comforter that Jesus promised his disciples, which should show them things past, present, and to come.

And:

If I am thus controled by the Spirit of the Most High I am a king, I am supreme so far as the control of self is concerned; and it also enables me to control my wives and children. And when they thus see that I am under the government and control of the Good Spirit, they will be perfectly submissive to my dictates.

So what you seem to advocate is that unless something is revealed scripture, it should be ignored? Even if it comes from a living prophet in a General Conference?

[_bcspace]

Besides... I think most nonbelievers would agree that Smith and Young taught many things that they claimed were based on revelation

Can you point to something like this on the moon issue?

It is true that opinions may have been strong enough for them to believe it to be truth, but the fact remains that the LDS Church has long known that the FP and the Qo12 are equal in authority (D&C 107) and hence all have to be in agreement for doctrine and policy to be official.

The fact that you guys know this is BY's opinion and not doctrine puts the lie in your implications. In order to make your point, you have to resort to yellow journalism which shows your intellectual dishonesty.