62 replies to this topic

[calmoriah]

Ryan.Samples, on 27 April 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

The First Vision makes it pretty plain (JS - History 1.19). See also D&C 1:30. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine offers an excellent summary of the Church's position, s.v. "Church of the Devil."

Your response actually stands in line with the reaction I get from all my Mormon friends. It's like they've never heard this notion that if theirs is the only true church on earth, the others are by definition false. I don't know if it's the new younger generation of Mormons or something, but my peers seem very unfamiliar with this church doctrine and its implications.

*edited for typo

Perhaps that is because that is not what is actually taught or implied by our doctrine, but merely what you have inferred through your own interpretation.  However, we do not interpret it that way.  All one has to do is study the description in the BoM to realize that it is not other churches, at least none that are in existence today.  Unless your church is intentionally designed to lead people away from God and his laws, it is not of the Church of the Devil even if it does not have the full truth, but only teaches part of the gospel.

Mormon Doctrine was not published by the Church. If you want church doctrine, you need to find it in church publications at the very least.

This is how it is taught to us:  http://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng

Edited by calmoriah, 27 April 2012 - 11:11 PM.

[Sleeper Cell]

Ryan.Samples, on 27 April 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

If the students perceive their university to be selling out its religious values for political purposes, then I would expect them to react according to their conscience as the Spirit so guides. If the LDS church started inviting all sorts of Republicans to speak during Conference I'd expect more than a few Mormons to have a problem with that. Granted commencement is not the same as Conference, but I can understand how many folks expect a religious speaker there. One needs only to look at BYU's recent commencement speaker history to see the kind of practice LU grads apparently desire: someone from their "camp."

Commencement isn't a religious event per se, but some folks think that at an Evangelical school it should be. I'd just like to see the school actually live up to its claims; if you say you're willing to bring in folks from all walks of life, give us a communist atheist next year.

Nobody disputes the fact that LDS General Conference is strictly a religious event. Of course, people expect religious speakers at a strictly religious event.  I fail to see any analogy with commencement.  Even you admit that Commencement isn’t a religious event, per se, even at an Evangelical school.  (The fact that you feel it should be is an admission that it isn’t).  It seems to me that if you wanted LU to make commencement a strictly religious event, you should have not waited until Romney was invited.

I will attribute your “communist” remark to the lateness of the hour.

[Storm Rider]

Ryan.Samples, on 27 April 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

If the students perceive their university to be selling out its religious values for political purposes, then I would expect them to react according to their conscience as the Spirit so guides. If the LDS church started inviting all sorts of Republicans to speak during Conference I'd expect more than a few Mormons to have a problem with that. Granted commencement is not the same as Conference, but I can understand how many folks expect a religious speaker there. One needs only to look at BYU's recent commencement speaker history to see the kind of practice LU grads apparently desire: someone from their "camp."

Commencement isn't a religious event per se, but some folks think that at an Evangelical school it should be. I'd just like to see the school actually live up to its claims; if you say you're willing to bring in folks from all walks of life, give us a communist atheist next year.

And, again, folks are miffed at the PR and politics that drive such decisions. I don't blame them.

Ryan, you do understand when stretching the position so far out of perspective it loses all meaning, yes?  You have gone far beyond stretched.  It is unforunate; it is always better to remain within the realm of logic when in a discussion.  As soon as a discussion is taken this far it becomes worthless to talk about.

[bluebell]

Ryan.Samples, on 27 April 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

The First Vision makes it pretty plain (JS - History 1.19). See also D&C 1:30. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine offers an excellent summary of the Church's position, s.v. "Church of the Devil."

Your response actually stands in line with the reaction I get from all my Mormon friends. It's like they've never heard this notion that if theirs is the only true church on earth, the others are by definition false.

The response stems from most mormons knowing their doctrine better than you do on the subject (and i'm not saying that in a snarky manner, but just as a statement of fact).

We know, for example, that we believe that God's truths can be found in every religion (even non-Christian religions) on the earth.  We know, as another example, that we believe that our church contains the fullness of the gospel, but that other churches contains parts of the Gospel.  We know that we consider members of other Christian religions as Christian and we believe that they can (and do) have personal relationships with their Savior just as we do.  We know that Elder McKonkie actually got reprimanded for  printing "mormon doctrine" and that, despite the name, it's not actually considered doctrine in our church.

Given all of that, and much more that i don't have time to mention, we know that the LDS church does not teach that every other church on the earth that isn't us is part of the church of the devil.

So while we've mostly certainly heard that the LDS church teaches what you have claimed, it's only from nonmembers that we usually hear it.

Quote

but my peers seem very unfamiliar with this church doctrine and its implications.

It's because your interpretation of its implication isn't ours.

[ERayR]

It seems Liberty U invites a variety of people to be commencement speakers.  Such as Paige Patterson, Ben Stein and Glen Beck.  It seems that Mitt Romney is not the first Mormon to be invited as Glen Beck is also Mormon.  As near as I can tell though all lean toward conservative family values.

quote from Falwell "Commencement, however, has always featured leaders from all walks of life and all faiths who share the university’s social values and traditional family values..."

Edited by ERayR, 28 April 2012 - 09:36 AM.

[Ryan.Samples]

calmoriah, on 27 April 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

Perhaps that is because that is not what is actually taught or implied by our doctrine, but merely what you have inferred through your own interpretation.  However, we do not interpret it that way.  All one has to do is study the description in the BoM to realize that it is not other churches, at least none that are in existence today.  Unless your church is intentionally designed to lead people away from God and his laws, it is not of the Church of the Devil even if it does not have the full truth, but only teaches part of the gospel.

Mormon Doctrine was not published by the Church. If you want church doctrine, you need to find it in church publications at the very least.

This is how it is taught to us:  http://www.lds.org/e...of-god?lang=eng

Yes, I know MoDoct isn't doctrine. Though there is something of a paradox in that the article you listed points readers to Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1973, 3:62–64. Clearly I am not the only person who sees that a non-official work can in fact prove useful for doctrine references. MoDoct is helpful because it includes in one article several references.

[Ryan.Samples]

calmoriah, on 27 April 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

Unless your church is intentionally designed to lead people away from God and his laws, it is not of the Church of the Devil even if it does not have the full truth, but only teaches part of the gospel.

If yours is the only true church, and mine says yours isn't, is it not logical to conclude my church is essentially designed to lead people away from yours? We deny the power of Joseph Smith and the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. How much more of a basic counter-LDS position could one find?

The non-Mormon congregations today stand in direct succession of practices and beliefs as those congregations present in the days of Smith and Young.  What do we do with Young's statement in Journal of Discourses 6.176?

"Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth. They may be called cockatrices, for they sting wherever they go. Go to their meetings in the Christian world, and mingle in their society, and you will hear them remark, “Our ministers dictate our souls' salvation;” and they are perfectly composed and resigned to trust their whole future destiny to their priests, though they durst not trust them with one single dollar beyond their salaries and a few presents. They can trust their eternal welfare in the hands of their priests, but hardly dare trust them with so much as a bushel of potatoes. Is that principle here? Yes, more or less."

Clearly the context is about something other than the apostasy, but what do we read above if not a very blunt statement that every church but the LDS church comes straight from the mouth of hell? Yes, the JoD is not a canonized work, but if the Conference speakers see fit to quote from it then I feel confident we can cite it as a trustworthy source (See Neal A. Maxwell's “My Servant Joseph” from the April 1992 Conference).

[calmoriah]

Mormon Doctrine does contain much useful information.  But to weight all of its information at the same level, especially when it is based on the use of another text by the same author which is substantially different in tone and content, imo, is foolish.  Best to keep to church published statements if you want to get a better idea about what the church actually teaches.

As far as what is actual doctrine, caution is needed even in working with church publications as noted by the church statement on doctrine:

Quote

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.
The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.
The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (theHoly Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
  
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

• Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receiverevelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being.  In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges.  According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
  
• Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwidehumanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
  
• Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.
  
• Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.
  

http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

If you truly care about engaging actual LDS thought and understanding and doctrine, then it would be best not to continue to claim as a valid source something that is rejected as an official doctrinal source by LDS.

[calmoriah]

Quote

If yours is the only true church, and mine says yours isn't, is it not logical to conclude my church is essentially designed to lead people away from yours?

If your church is designed to lead people to God in the best way your members know how, then that is all that matters to me because then God can lead them where he wants them to be, including my church if that is his wish.

[calmoriah]

Quote

Clearly the context is about something other than the apostasy, but what do we read above if not a very blunt statement that every church but the LDS church comes straight from the mouth of hell?

And yet BY helped with the building of the Catholic church in SLC (I think the land was donated) and ever since then, members of our faith and the Church itself have contributed to the work of other faiths through donations to their buildings, working side by side with them on their humanitarian projects, etc.

Edited by calmoriah, 28 April 2012 - 11:13 AM.

[calmoriah]

Ryan.Samples, on 28 April 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

I feel confident we can cite it as a trustworthy source

For what?

We have examples of BY contradicting what he said himself in a morning session.  We don't view our leaders as infallible or unbiased simply because they are behind the pulpit.  We also don't view our doctrine as set in stone from the moment the Church was organized, but we believe in continuing revelation....meaning that we just might have a clearer understanding of the Gospel and man's relationship to God and God's work through our more recent prophets than our past prophets.

Edited by calmoriah, 28 April 2012 - 11:16 AM.

[bluebell]

Ryan.Samples, on 28 April 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

If yours is the only true church, and mine says yours isn't, is it not logical to conclude my church is essentially designed to lead people away from yours?

Calmoriah meant unless a church is designed to purposefully lead someone away from God, it's not the church of the devil.

You believe that by leading people away from the LDS church, you are drawing them closer to Christ (though LDS believe you are wrong).  If you are trying, wrong or right, to bring people to Christ, then you can't be of the devil.

Jesus Himself declared that the devil can't do good (the devil couldn't cast himself out, trying to trick people, for example).  Trying to sincerely lead people to Christ can never be labeled as evil, even if desire is misguided.

Edited by bluebell, 28 April 2012 - 11:16 AM.

[calmoriah]

Brigham Young was 30 years old when he encountered the newly formed LDS faith.  Like him, all the earliest leaders were born and bred in other faiths prior to joining and one can trace the habits and ideas they brought along as baggage, including that particular style of discourse RS found (perhaps on some anti-mormon site as I highly doubt he's spent much time reading the Journals themselves and it isn't one of the verses thought highly of among LDS to be quoted here and there though it's beloved by those who like to criticize the Church and find justification for their own attacks on our faith.)

Thankfully as time has gone on, we've developed our own church character that does not need such bombastic language to communicate what we think is most important to proclaim, the Atonement of our Lord and Saviour and his invitation to all to come to him, accept his gift of life and his gift of blessings and his gift of his commandments and receive salvation and become exalted by becoming one with him and his Father.

As Joseph Smith said:

Quote

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.”

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

Edited by calmoriah, 28 April 2012 - 11:35 AM.

[Ryan.Samples]

calmoriah, on 28 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Mormon Doctrine does contain much useful information.

That's all I was getting at.

calmoriah, on 28 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

As far as what is actual doctrine, caution is needed even in working with church publications as noted by the church statement on doctrine

That's the problem, isn't it? Which sources can one trust and which can be ignored?

calmoriah, on 28 April 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

including that particular style of discourse RS found (perhaps on some anti-mormon site as I highly doubt he's spent much time reading the Journals themselves

Yes, of course I haven't ever read any of these things before. Clearly I just Google all this and then come on to message boards so I can get you all riled up. Obviously I'm not asking these questions for the purpose of exploration. If you're only logging in to insult me, I suspect your time is better spent elsewhere. I am amazed that you invite non-Mormons to explore your faith and then we do, with earnestness, we're anti-Mormon. Fabulous. Perhaps your time is best spent ignoring any and all of my future posts.

[calmoriah]

I have not said that you have never read those comments before coming here to post.  In fact I would be surprised if you had not.  Most posters who post such things in my experience have a long time familiarity with those types of quotes.  

What I said it is highly unlikely that you read them from the Journal itself, at least when you first encountered them.  If you went to the original source to read them in context at least, I applaud you.  Most posters using such things do not.

I have no idea why you are here on the board and have made no conclusions about it.  I've got to wonder though why you are jumping to conclusions about me.  And if I have called you "anti-mormon" please point it out to me.

Quote

Clearly the context is about something other than the apostasy

But I bet you would be somewhat surprised to find out what the context actually is.

Edited by calmoriah, 28 April 2012 - 01:17 PM.

[volgadon]

Quote

The non-Mormon congregations today stand in direct succession of practices and beliefs as those congregations present in the days of Smith and Young.

The phrase "hatched in Hell" was part and parcel of Protestant-Catholic polemics. But, are you really trying to say that you stand in direct succession to things like this:

Quote

So Mormonism, in order to make progress in a Christian community, puts on the garb of righteousness, and many are really made to believe it the fulness of the gospel. How can the truths of Christianity be thus used to build up the devil's kingdom?
Stripping off its mantle of hypocrisy, Mormonism stands forth in the following cardinal positions...

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

[calmoriah]

Quote

That's the problem, isn't it? Which sources can one trust and which can be ignored?

Not much of a problem in my view, the newsroom description is pretty clear for how the Church chooses to view its sources of doctrine.

[Log]

calmoriah, on 28 April 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Not much of a problem in my view, the newsroom description is pretty clear for how the Church chooses to view its sources of doctrine.

Which sources are pretty much only those which are canonized.  Therefore, I feel no need to defend any particular statement from the KFD, JoD, Mormon Doctrine, or even this month's edition of the Ensign.

Edited by Log, 28 April 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Which sources are pretty much only those which are canonized.

That is an incorrect or incomplete representation.  The doctrine is published by the Church and merely resides in the Standard Works et. al.  You cannot open any of the Stadard Works and point to verses and tell someone else what the doctrine is in most cases without referring to some other work published by the Church.  For example, you do not know that the water in John 3:5 means water baptism as opposed to the evangelical interpretation of physical birth.  Another example is the doctrine that those who do not have opportunity to marry in this life will have such an opportunity in the next.  Or abortion being like unto murder.  Etc.

The upshot is that it takes modern prophets and apostles to establish the doctrine out of the scriptures as well as continuing revelation (which is rarely canonized).  It is then officially published in a manual, or magazine, and yes, even artwork, al of which the Church lists of sources for us to use in teaching the doctrine, keeping it pure, and as the voice of the Church.

A scripture only view does nothing but deny the prophets and apostles and the need thereof and is in complete opposition to how the Church sees it's own doctrine.

Elder Christofferson's recent GC talk is an excellent illustration of this even though it concentrated more on the establishment side than the publication side (though he did give an example of such).

Quote

Therefore, I feel no need to defend any particular statement from the KFD, JoD, Mormon Doctrine, or even this month's edition of the Ensign.

Not being published by the Church, one can indeed safely ignore the JoD or BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" etc.  However, items from those are often found in works published by the Church and those items are therefore official doctrine because of that.

Edited by BCSpace, 28 April 2012 - 08:38 PM.

[Pahoran]

Ryan.Samples, on 28 April 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

If yours is the only true church, and mine says yours isn't, is it not logical to conclude my church is essentially designed to lead people away from yours? We deny the power of Joseph Smith and the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. How much more of a basic counter-LDS position could one find?

The non-Mormon congregations today stand in direct succession of practices and beliefs as those congregations present in the days of Smith and Young.  What do we do with Young's statement in Journal of Discourses 6.176?

"Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth. They may be called cockatrices, for they sting wherever they go. Go to their meetings in the Christian world, and mingle in their society, and you will hear them remark, “Our ministers dictate our souls' salvation;” and they are perfectly composed and resigned to trust their whole future destiny to their priests, though they durst not trust them with one single dollar beyond their salaries and a few presents. They can trust their eternal welfare in the hands of their priests, but hardly dare trust them with so much as a bushel of potatoes. Is that principle here? Yes, more or less."

Clearly the context is about something other than the apostasy, but what do we read above if not a very blunt statement that every church but the LDS church comes straight from the mouth of hell? Yes, the JoD is not a canonized work, but if the Conference speakers see fit to quote from it then I feel confident we can cite it as a trustworthy source (See Neal A. Maxwell's “My Servant Joseph” from the April 1992 Conference).

Ryan,

For someone who describes himself as being "interested in broadening my understanding of LDS theology" etc, you certainly seem to have a fair number of standard anti-Mormon prooftexts at your fingertips.

If you're actually here to discuss our faith with us, then you will do us the very common and rather minimal courtesy of permitting us to speak for our faith.  To throw out these standard anti-Mormon note-cards and then insist that you know better than we do what our Church "really" teaches is rather astonishingly presumptuous.

Not only that, but it starts to look like you are really here to tell us what's wrong with our beliefs, and to keep your own "nderstanding as narrow as possible.

Regards,
Pahoran