2012--The Year DCP Wished Wasn't

[_SteelHead]

Brigham taught Adam-God and blood atonement as doctrine.

That Pahoran won't recognize this is just evidence of:

But all prophets will become dead prophets in their turn. Therefore there are some of their teachings that a future prophet may reveal as unreliable (as, for instance, some teachings of Brigham Young appear to have been). Some of their teachings are, however, the voice of eternal truth.

Only problem is, while the prophet is alive, there seems to be no way of guessing which of their teachings will at some time in the future be officially shredded. And even the ones that, at any given time, remain unshredded may be shredded by some future prophet, who will reveal that they were in some way mistaken.

That does seem to render the prophetic role markedly less useful as a guide to life, does it not?

[_Pahoran]

<Snip handful of standard prooftexts>

Yes, and? Your point, if you have one?

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."

You do know, don't you, that "standard work" has taken on a uniquely LDS meaning since the publication of JoD Volume 8, don't you?

If you know that, then why are you posting that snippet, without qualification, as if it means the same as the current usage? How is that honest?

If you didn't know that, then just how reliable is your "expertise" in Mormon things?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_SteelHead]

My point?:

Brigham taught Adam-God and blood atonement as doctrine.

That Pahoran won't recognize this is just evidence of:

But all prophets will become dead prophets in their turn. Therefore there are some of their teachings that a future prophet may reveal as unreliable (as, for instance, some teachings of Brigham Young appear to have been). Some of their teachings are, however, the voice of eternal truth.

Only problem is, while the prophet is alive, there seems to be no way of guessing which of their teachings will at some time in the future be officially shredded. And even the ones that, at any given time, remain unshredded may be shredded by some future prophet, who will reveal that they were in some way mistaken.

That does seem to render the prophetic role markedly less useful as a guide to life, does it not?

How is it dishonest to note, that when the JOD was published it was viewed by the church as a standard work? This idea of it being a standard work is concurrent with the idea that dead prophets routinely get thrown under the bus. EG a discarded work full of the discarded teachings of discarded prophets and apostles.

In retrospect, by calling my integrity suspect by noting that the JOD was viewed as a standard work but no longer crosses that rubicon, you make Chap's argument for him.

[_Pahoran]

How is it dishonest to note, that when the JOD was published it was viewed by the church as a standard work? This idea of it being a standard work is concurrent with the idea that dead prophets routinely get thrown under the bus. EG a discarded work full of the discarded teachings of discarded prophets and apostles.

In retrospect, by calling my integrity suspect by noting that the JOD was viewed as a standard work but no longer crosses that rubicon, you make Chap's argument for him.

No. I do not.

I don't know if you missed my point, or if you are playing at being obtuse. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try again.

The phrase "standard work" comes from academia. Its original meaning is, and in that context remains, "a work of recognised excellence." In that sense, the Journal of Discourses was then, is now, and will undoubtedly remain, a "standard work" of Mormon letters.

However, the uniquely LDS usage of "standard work," meaning "a volume of canonical scripture" arose after the JoD was published. The publisher's blurb in Volume 8 did not describe the JoD as a "standard work" in that sense because that usage did not then exist.

Thus, your claim that "the JOD was viewed as a standard work but no longer crosses that rubicon" relies upon the fallacy of equivocation. The only question before us is whether you already knew that.

Furthermore, your spiteful characterisation of the JoD as "a discarded work full of the discarded teachings of discarded prophets and apostles" is demonstrably false.

It is not a "discarded worK" because its status now is the same as it always was: it is the record of talks given by General Authorities and others, in Conference and elsewhere.

Nor is it "full of" any "discarded teachings." The JoD is an enormous work, running to over 9000 pages; by contrast, the "discarded teachings" you and your fellow anti-Mormons -- and absolutely nobody else -- rely upon would, if printed on paper and bound, make up a rather thin pamphlet.

Not only that, but none of you ever make the slightest effort to determine what those teachings, or any of them, really meant to the Latter-day Saints, or what weight they carried in the Church. Merely tossing them out there, without making any attempt to discuss anything, is a mere exercise in Mormon-baiting.

Thus, the claim that the former apostles and prophets have themselves been "discarded" stands exposed for the spiteful polemical falsehood it is.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Brigham taught Adam-God and blood atonement as doctrine.

The record shows that Brigham was all over the map on the subject of God. For informed Latter-day Saints, this is hardly a problem; a prophet is not a theologian, not even an inspired theologian.

As for the despicable "blood atonement" libel: it is an exact parallel to the anti-Semitic Blood Libel. It serves the same purpose and is used by the same kind of people: the disgusting kind.

See my post, above, that mentions Brigham's propensity for hyperbole. Not one of the hate polemicists who try to exploit Brigham's words (there are no deeds available for that purpose, only words) in support of the "blood atonement" libel has ever made the slightest effort to control for his rhetorical style. That is proof, if any were needed, that they are being utterly dishonest.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_SteelHead]

So the JOD as "a work of recognized excellence" was not viewed as an authoritative source? I included quotes from BY showing that he at least believed what he taught to be doctrinal.

Thus, the claim that the former apostles and prophets have themselves been "discarded" stands exposed for the spiteful polemical falsehood it is.

Right......

So the questions remains:

Did Brigham Young teach Adam-God? (Blood atonement, blacks would never receive the priesthood, polygamy would never be taken from the earth?)

Did Brigham Young view his teachings as doctrinal?

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)

Did the body of the church view his teachings as doctrinal at the time? (The Adam-God teaching made it into the temple ceremony)

Has the church since abandoned many of the doctrines that originated with Brigham Young?

Second set:

Was the JOD once viewed as a more authoritative source than it is now?

Hmmm....

Hoist your petard of non doctrinal Pahoran. Either way it shows the unreliability of prophets.

[_Pahoran]

So the JOD as "a work of recognized excellence" was not viewed as an authoritative source?

As you now know -- if you did not then -- it was never viewed as equivalent to canonical scripture.

I included quotes from BY showing that he at least believed what he taught to be doctrinal.

You included some quotes. If we were to examine them closely, you would find that they do not support your polemical misuse thereof.

Thus, the claim that the former apostles and prophets have themselves been "discarded" stands exposed for the spiteful polemical falsehood it is.

Right......

So the questions remains:

Did Brigham Young teach Adam-God? (Blood atonement, blacks would never receive the priesthood, polygamy would never be taken from the earth?)

Honest critics, if such there are or ever could be, would be willing to discuss one question at a time, in reasonable detail, instead of relying upon the scatter-gun approach.

Did Brigham Young view his teachings as doctrinal?

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)

Note the portion I have highlighted. The Journal of Discourses was published in England, not in America. Brigham exercised no editorial control, meaning that he did not "have the privilege of correcting" what was published therein.

Did the body of the church view his teachings as doctrinal at the time? (The Adam-God teaching made it into the temple ceremony)

Matthew 7:6 prohibits me from discussing the Temple Ceremony with such as yourself; or indeed with anyone at all in this venue. So beyond that, all I can legitimately do is point out that what you claim does not mean what you would like others to think.

As I already mentioned, Brigham did not teach a single unified doctrine of God. Rather, he threw out brief snippets, often embedded in sermons on other topics, which people have chosen to construe according to their preferences. But his teachings on the exaltation of Adam were controversial in the Church throughout his lifetime, including in the highest quorums, and thus were never accepted by the Church as doctrine.

If you were actually interested in learning anything, this might be relevant to you. I doubt that you are, though. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Has the church since abandoned many of the doctrines that originated with Brigham Young?

I still haven't been shown a "doctrine" that (1) originated with Brigham Young and (2) which the Church actually held, in order for the Church to "abandon" it.

Second set:

Was the JOD once viewed as a more authoritative source than it is now?

No. And I am unaware of any honest person who has ever claimed that it was.

Hmmm....

Hoist your petard of non doctrinal Pahoran. Either way it shows the unreliability of prophets.

Thank you for admitting that you are not interested in actually discussing anything relating to LDS life and teaching, but are merely interested in cheap polemical point-scoring.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_SteelHead]

No it was not viewed as canonical scripture...... so what? It contained the discourses of the prophet. Said prophets being the mouthpieces of god. The "not doctrinal" retreat of the apologist is a recent thing, used to evade the contradictions and mess left by the lord's mouthpieces. Said discourses were viewed as the modern conference report is now. An authoritative source, containing the words of the prophets. Not as weighty as the scripture perhaps, but next to it.

You included some quotes. If we were to examine them closely, you would find that they do not support your polemical misuse thereof.

Sure they do. Brigham believed he taught doctrine. Why do you not?

Note the portion I have highlighted. The Journal of Discourses was published in England, not in America. Brigham exercised no editorial control, meaning that he did not "have the privilege of correcting" what was published therein.

There are various other sources corroborating what is in JOD for the majority of these points. But you already knew that.

Matthew 7:6 prohibits me from discussing the Temple Ceremony with such as yourself; or indeed with anyone at all in this venue. So beyond that, all I can legitimately do is point out that what you claim does not mean what you would like others to think.

Right....... That the teachings of the Adam-God theory were included in the temple ceremony would somehow violate your temple covenants? Or are you arguing that the fact that they were included in the highest ceremonies of mormondom, does not make them doctrinal?

I still haven't been shown a "doctrine" that (1) originated with Brigham Young and (2) which the Church actually held, in order for the Church to "abandon" it.

Re - Adam-God at the temple veil.

No. And I am unaware of any honest person who has ever claimed that it was.

No true Scotsman, I mean Mormon, I mean honest person, ever held the JOD as an more authoritative source?... Right. And yet they are the basis for most of the recent "Teachings of" manuals. Though highly redacted.


You like Sub, like to claim victory where there is none. I never admitted I did not want to discuss anything. I am merely pointing out that the reliability of the teachings of past prophets is such a poor thing..... That the only true deliniation of what constitutes Mormon doctrine is whatever refuge from the past that has yet to be discarded, mingled with scripture.

I don't know that we teach it....I don't think we know much about that

Says the man in with the keys of the second anointing.

[_Pahoran]

Cutting to the chase here:

No true Scotsman, I mean Mormon, I mean honest person, ever held the JOD as an more authoritative source?... Right.

Yes, that is right.

Because if it were not, then utterly unscrupulous anti-Mormon propagandists wouldn't need to consciously and intentionally equivocate about that "standard work" citation, as they invariably do.

And yet they are the basis for most of the recent "Teachings of" manuals.

Yes, the fact that the JoD does not have canonical status doesn't make it unavailable as a historical source.

Though highly redacted.

The quotes excerpted for those manuals are far more extensive and representative than the tiny handful of anti-Mormon prooftexts relied upon by propagandists such as yourself. Your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your double standards.

You like Sub, like to claim victory where there is none. I never admitted I did not want to discuss anything.

Not intentionally; which makes your admission all the more telling. The fact is that you aren't trying to discuss anything in good faith, and you've proven that fact.

I am merely pointing out that the reliability of the teachings of past prophets is such a poor thing.....

No, you are not "pointing out" any such thing; you are tendentiously trying to argue to that conclusion.

Alas, you have failed.

That the only true deliniation of what constitutes Mormon doctrine is whatever refuge from the past that has yet to be discarded, mingled with scripture.

The arrogance by which you presume to declare "the only true deliniation [sic] of what constitutes Mormon [sic] doctrine" -- a doctrine you do not hold and are therefore utterly unqualified to pronounce upon -- is absolute and confirming proof, if what you have already furnished was not entirely sufficient, of your total lack of good faith in this matter.

I don't know that we teach it....I don't think we know much about that

Says the man in with the keys of the second anointing.

Still jeering about sacred matters you know nothing about, I see.

There's a brief vignette in Schindler's List that I remember each time I see a performance like yours: a couple of Brown Shirts with scissors, clipping the earlocks of an Orthodox Jew. You'd be right at home in that role, wouldn't you?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_SteelHead]

So the JOD is good enough for doctrinal manuals when it is, but not doctrinal when it isn't. Great. And you call me a hypocrite.

If being included in the temple ceremony is not sufficient to make a teaching doctrinal, then what parts of the temple ceremony are? Do I get to pick and choose, or is that responsibility left to you, as you already seem to have exercised it?

The arrogance by which you presume to declare "the only true deliniation [sic] of what constitutes Mormon [sic] doctrine" -- a doctrine you do not hold and are therefore utterly unqualified to pronounce upon -- is absolute and confirming proof, if what you have already furnished was not entirely sufficient, of your total lack of good faith in this matter.

Fun, the you do not belong to our club, hence are unqualified to comment upon it defense. Too bad there is so much publicly available information these days........................ oh and but wait. What is this? A current temple recommend in my wallet?

I know, I know, you will say I am not fit to posses it.

You should try the Chewbacca defense next.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE

There's a brief vignette in Schindler's List that I remember each time I see a performance like yours: a couple of Brown Shirts with scissors, clipping the earlocks of an Orthodox Jew. You'd be right at home in that role, wouldn't you?

Woah!!!! Did you just compare me to a Nazi? I think you lost.

“We must make a personal attack when there is no argumentative basis for our speech”

Do you really think that your vitriol filled defense of the church helps its cause?