2012--The Year DCP Wished Wasn't

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: 2012--The Year DCP Wished Wasn't

Post by _sock puppet »

sock puppet wrote:
Pahoran wrote:Naturally, the teachings of living prophets supersede those of dead ones.

But the decisions of middle-level bureaucrats don't.

Regards,
Pahoran

Big assumption there as to where that decision originated.

Pahoran wrote:It's not that big of an assumption. In fact, it's hardly an assumption at all. Everyone who is in a position to know where the decision originated has said it came from Bradford;


Well, do tell. From William Goldman's dialogue for the Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid movie, "who are those guys?", you know, Pahoran, those in the know and demonstrate that the decision was Bradford's alone?

Pahoran wrote:The Church leaders don't micro-manage BYU, and routine personnel decisions are not referred to them.


So glad to know that it was no big fuss, nothing out of the ordinary, just a 'routine personnel decision' for the LDS Church's big dog Mopologist to be defanged.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: 2012--The Year DCP Wished Wasn't

Post by _SteelHead »

I'll give two:
Blood atonement and Adam God.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: 2012--The Year DCP Wished Wasn't

Post by _sock puppet »

Pahoran wrote:Reports of "teachings that a future prophet may reveal as unreliable" are vastly exaggerated.

Anti-Mormons (and of course there are simply none of them around here) bandy this notion around as if it represented some regular occurrence in LDS life; it does not.


To be problematic in the way Chap points out, it requires no exaggeration. It does not need to be a 'regular' occurrence. It nearly needs to have happened once, just once and then the members are left without the reliability guide promised them that the prophet would never lead them astray. Since it has happened once--actually more than once--what is the membership left with to rely on?
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: 2012--The Year DCP Wished Wasn't

Post by _sock puppet »

Pahoran wrote:
MsJack wrote:The decision originated with Bradford. President Samuelson came to support Bradford in his decision soon afterward, and directed him to not reverse it.

CFR for the bolded portion, please.

Regards,
Pahoran

MsJack,

Here you have hinted at new information that will cause Pahoran cog dis. He will have to accommodate and assimilate the new information, if he cannot reject it out of hand, so that he can maintain his faith in all things DCP.

* * *

All others,

Now is the time for the Sunday matinee to begin. Get your popcorn.
_Cicero
_Emeritus
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:09 am

Re: 2012--The Year DCP Wished Wasn't

Post by _Cicero »

Pahoran: Do you really believe that Bradford would make a decision like that without clearing it with Samuelson?
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Re: 2012--The Year DCP Wished Wasn't

Post by _Pahoran »

Chap wrote:
Pahoran wrote:Steelhead,

Please name one doctrine unique to Brigham Young.

Regards,
Pahoran

Slippery work there.

How so?

Chap wrote:1.Steelhead proposes a test of Pahoran's claim that it is rare for the teachings of dead prophets to be superseded by later prophets.
2. Taking the example of Brigham Young he asks for an example of a doctrine taught by BY that is still current in the CoJCoLDS.
3. Since he clearly is interested in Brigham Young (who taught so much and and such great and emphatic length), he seeks to exclude cases where Young was in effect simply repeating what had been taught by the prophet preceding him, Joseph Smith.
4. Therefore he asks for an example of a doctrine taught for the first time by Brigham Young that is still current in the CoJCoLDS.

Pahoran won't play, however, and one can see why.

I regret that you have no good faith basis to believe what you assert.

Pahoran will indeed "play," just as soon as anyone can produce a "doctrine unique to Brigham Young." To qualify as a "doctrine" it would need to (1) be taught by him and (2) have been accepted by the Church as binding.

So, is there such a doctrine?

Chap wrote:But I will - how about the penalty for a white man having sex with a woman of African lineage (a.k.a. "The Seed of Cain") being "death on the spot"? Joseph Smith did not teach that, and I don't think it is current in the CoJCoLDS today, is it?

( I wonder if Pahoran will tell us that BY did not teach that?)

Of course, Pahoran knows all about this standard anti-Mormon chestnut.

Indeed, Pahoran may even know something about it that the standard anti-Mormons have not considered.

Given that Brigham did say it: what did he actually mean by it? When he had the opportunity to enact his views into law (and he was territorial governor at the time) what laws did he enact?

Just this: a law providing for a slave to be liberated in the case that the slave's master sexually interfered with him/her.

That was it, and that was all of it.

Where was the statute making miscegenation a capital offence, Chap?

I'll save you the trouble of looking: it never existed.

As for the talk: it covered a number of topics. The paragraphs immediately before and after the snippet anti-Mormons love so much addresses the causes of the Civil War, slavery and the abuse of slaves.

That is the context.

That's what he's referring to.

When Sir Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor) visited SLC and talked to Brigham, he also listened to his sermons. He discovered, and reported, on a phenomenon that anti-Mormons never seem to notice: Brigham's reliance upon hyperbole as a rhetorical device.

Anyone making a good-faith effort to understand his meaning is going to at least try to control for Brigham's hyperbole.

So what "doctrine," if any, is actually contained in that statement?

Probably nothing more than this: It is wrong for slave-holders to abuse their slaves sexually.

I'm not sure that that is original to Brigham; it seems to at least be compatible with some of Paul's musings on the subject. And while slavery is largely a moot point today, so the teaching doesn't get much air time, I doubt anyone would disagree with it.

Regards,
Pahoran
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Re: 2012--The Year DCP Wished Wasn't

Post by _Pahoran »

SteelHead wrote:I'll give two:
Blood atonement and Adam God.

See above as to the criteria for determining if something qualifies as doctrine.

Do your examples qualify?

by the way, it is an absolutely non-controversial principle that only believers get to decide what is binding or doctrinal in a belief system; critics have no say in the matter. So, authoritative LDS sources only, please.

Regards,
Pahoran
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: 2012--The Year DCP Wished Wasn't

Post by _SteelHead »

I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this go to the people with "Thus saith the Lord," and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. - JoD 13:95 (January 2, 1870)


I am here to give this people, called Latter-day Saints, counsel to direct them in the path of life. I am here to answer; I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. 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. - JoD 16:161 (August 31,1873)

But to return to my question to the Saints, "How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?" By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin? I sometimes say to my brethren, "I have been your dictator for twenty-seven years_over a quarter of a century I have dictated this people; that ought to be some evidence that my course is onward and upward. But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? Sisters can you tell the difference? I can say this for the Latter-day Saints, and I will say it to their praise and my satisfaction, if I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, "I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!" All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach, if you think you have one. It would not sit well on the mind, for you are seeking after the things of God; you have started out for life and salvation, and with all their ignorance, wickedness and failings, the majority of this people are doing just as well as they know how; and I will defy any man, to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders. of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it. - JoD 14:205 (August 13, 1871)


The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary. The infidel world have concluded that if what the Apostles wrote about his father and mother be true, and the present marriage discipline acknowledged by Christendom be correct then Christians must believe that God is the father of an illegitimate son, in the person of Jesus Christ! The infidel fraternity teach that to their disciples. I will tell you how it is. Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken - HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgen Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so [p.51] on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming "great is the mystery of godliness," and tell nothing.

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. - JoD 1:50-51 (April 9, 1852)

[That] reminds me that brother Joseph B. Nobles once told a Methodist priest, after hearing him describe his god, that the god they worshipped was the "Mormons'" Devil - a being without a body, whereas our God has a body, parts, and passions. The Devil was cursed and sent down from heaven. He has no body of his own; therefore he is constantly endeavouring to obtain possession of the tabernacles belonging to others. Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true. Where was Michael in the creation of this earth? Did he have a mission to the earth? He did. Where was he? In the Grand Council, and performed the mission assigned him there. Now, if it should happen that we have to pay tribute to Father Adam, what a humiliating circumstance it would be! Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass [p.332] the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, "I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;" and after a while you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, "Here; you have been faithful, good boys; I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass;" then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam. But those are ideas which do not concern us at present, although it is written in the Bible - "This is eternal life, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." - JoD 5:331-332 (October 7, 1857)


JOD preface to volume 8, page iii

The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of "the light that shines from Zion's hill."
Last edited by Guest on Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Re: 2012--The Year DCP Wished Wasn't

Post by _Pahoran »

sock puppet wrote:To be problematic in the way Chap points out, it requires no exaggeration. It does not need to be a 'regular' occurrence. It nearly needs to have happened once, just once and then the members are left without the reliability guide promised them that the prophet would never lead them astray. Since it has happened once--actually more than once--what is the membership left with to rely on?

The promise that the prophet will never lead the Saints astray, of course; which promise has been shown to be reliable throughout the history of the Church.

If you disagree -- and as the accusers, you and your fellows have the burden of proof -- CFR that any prophet has ever led the Church astray.

Thanks,
Pahoran
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Re: 2012--The Year DCP Wished Wasn't

Post by _Pahoran »

sock puppet wrote:MsJack,

Here you have hinted at new information that will cause Pahoran cog dis. He will have to accommodate and assimilate the new information, if he cannot reject it out of hand, so that he can maintain his faith in all things DCP.

* * *

All others,

Now is the time for the Sunday matinee to begin. Get your popcorn.

You know, it's a shame that evil Mormon apologists like me keep posting nasty personal swipes on this forum. Why, if it weren't for me, this would be a paradise of sweetness and light, wouldn't it?

Regards,
Pahoran
Post Reply