The King Folette Discourse

[Calm]

I doubt career anti-cultism is a very lucrative bidniz, brotha. *grin* The point is, from his perspective he's doing a good thing, and from my perspective, I prefer his brand of opposition to that of, say, Jack Chick or Ed Decker. I certainly dislike Bowman's site, etc, but we should be persuading him to join our "side", not excoriating him for not seeing the light quite yet....

How much time have you spent reading the material on his site out of curiosity?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Not terribly much. It's just rehashes of the same old stuff. (Isaiah 45:5? Swedenborg and View of the Hebrews? Priesthood and black issues? Sheesh, call me when 1977 ends. )

[TAO]

If you stuck to the LDS canon, you would almost be a Protestant. In fact, trinitarianism is technically consistent with the LDS canon. Yes, God has a body, and so does Jesus; but many Protestants and Catholics believe Jesus has a body too--you can have a body and still share the same essence with the Trinity. There is no Heavenly Mother in the LDS canon. No Endowment, either, and no temple garments. The canon encourages you to drink beer.

My friend, you need to read the D&C =P. This isn't very correct =/.

Edited November 4, 2011 by TAO

[Storm Rider]

I think that whenever Mormons complain about evangelical critics supposedly misrepresenting LDS doctrine, I will simply point them to this thread. The range of competing views about fundamental issues (what constitutes official or authoritative LDS doctrine, what is the nature of God, whether it's even important to believe a certain doctrine of God, etc.) in this thread alone is breathtaking. If Mormons knowledgeable about their faith, as all the Mormons participating here seems to be, can differ among themselves so radically on such basic questions as whether God has always been God or whether God in the past might have been a sinner, should you be surprised if non-Mormons don't always agree with you as an individual regarding what "the" LDS position really is?

Rob, if it does anything it would make it clear that you cannot point to this doctrine and say "this is what LDS believe". This is not doctrine of the Church and should not be presented as such by anyone. If it was meant to be doctrine, it would have been added to the canon a long time ago. It was not; why? Because it is NOT doctrinal regardless of how many times it is used by members. The one thing that is certain is what is found in II Nephi 25:26 "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." All else is but an appendage to this single, great teaching.

In closing, I recall another of Joseph's teachings, which I think of often, “Don’t be limited in your views with regard to your neighbor’s virtue, but beware of self-righteousness, and be limited in the estimate of your own virtues, and not think yourselves more righteous than others; you must enlarge your souls towards each other, if you would do like Jesus, and carry your fellow-creatures to Abraham’s bosom” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 228; History of the Church, 4:606).

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

It makes no sense to me how he can believe the Bible is true based on the mere fact that it is the bible.

Since I have told you more than once that this is not my position, your continuing to say it is now clearly bearing false witness against me.

[Rob Bowman]

Jeremy,

Regarding IRR's website, you wrote:

Not terribly much. It's just rehashes of the same old stuff. (Isaiah 45:5? Swedenborg and View of the Hebrews? Priesthood and black issues? Sheesh, call me when 1977 ends. )

I would be interested in your assessment of the new materials on our website, in particular the Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide, of which I am the author. I don't think it would be fair to characterize it as rehashing of the same old stuff. Likewise, I have some articles that present cutting-edge research responding to LDS arguments for early reports of the First Vision that have so far been ignored by LDS apologists (even those to whom I wrote personally inviting their response).

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

Rob, if it does anything it would make it clear that you cannot point to this doctrine and say "this is what LDS believe".

I don't do that, so your criticism is off target. What I do is point to the doctrine in the KFD and say, "This is what Joseph Smith, the founding Prophet of the LDS Restoration, taught."

You wrote:

This is not doctrine of the Church and should not be presented as such by anyone.

As I have pointed out, other members of the LDS Church disagree with your claim here.

[CV75]

When I search “God himself was once as we are now” into lds.org, I get twelve results from Church-published manuals and magazines, several of which are duplicative.

The idea that “God himself was once as we are now” may be improperly used to fixate on or indict His mortal behavior or qualification to be our Father and so argue against the LDS concept of God.

But nothing is taught of the details of His personal mortal history or experience, only that He was once mortal and obeyed eternal principles until He overcame death and hell and became an Exalted Man (the plan of salvation). Whether He accomplished this with the aid of a Savior, or whether He was a Savior Himself, is not discussed. Either way, He is God.

What is taught with much greater detail and emphasis is that as God’s literal offspring we can become as He is, exalted human beings. We do this by progressing along the plan of salvation and in the correct understanding and mastery of eternal principles, as He and Jesus did, to become as They are.

[Vance]

I for one am glad He's back. I missed the cheap entertainment..

Yup!

His arguments are the best they have, and they are vapid. It is good to have him around.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

I don't know what flavor of Christian you are, and it doesn't bother me a bit which one you are. However no LDS has ever made the claim that JS or any other mortal person is inerrant. We have a long established method of determiing what is doctrine in the Church, and the KFD has never met the criteria.

http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

• 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 (the Holy 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.
  

Edited November 4, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

I don't think the argument I gave was circular.

And that is the problem. It is circular, you just don't see it.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Vance

[Vance]

Not terribly much. It's just rehashes of the same old stuff. (Isaiah 45:5? Swedenborg and View of the Hebrews? Priesthood and black issues? Sheesh, call me when 1977 ends. )

Now THAT is funny!!! :rofl:

[mfbukowski]

Not terribly much. It's just rehashes of the same old stuff. (Isaiah 45:5? Swedenborg and View of the Hebrews? Priesthood and black issues? Sheesh, call me when 1977 ends. )

And the text of the endowment.

Distortions of Gospel Principles which are actually laughable, but highly misleading.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

I don't know what flavor of Christian you are, and it doesn't bother me a bit which one you are.

I am an evangelical Protestant Christian. I am happy to go into more detail if you like.

You wrote:

However no LDS has ever made the claim that JS or any other mortal person is inerrant.

This statement, while true, is totally irrelevant. I have not argued that Joseph Smith needed to be inerrant or that because he was not inerrant he was a false prophet. Inerrancy is simply not the issue here.

You wrote:

We have a long established method of determiing what is doctrine in the Church, and the KFD has never met the criteria.

As I have pointed out, others here disagree. Furthermore, as I have already stated, it doesn't matter to me whether or not the KFD is regarded as official LDS doctrine. Joseph Smith gave that discourse, and it is false doctrine.

You then cited the following:

http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

• 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 (the Holy 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.

Nice, but irrelevant. The newsroom web article is not itself LDS doctrine by its own standard! That is, the newsroom article is not part of LDS scripture and is not an official declaration or proclamation of the First Presidency (is it?). In any case, Joseph Smith presented his statements in the KFD as essential truths about God and expressly claimed that he was making those statements in his capacity as a prophet.

[mfbukowski]

And that is the problem. It is circular, you just don't see it.

The problem is not just Rob's- it is the whole theological system. There is no way to confirm that the Bible should be taken as "scripture" applicable to my life any more or less than the Avesta or Bhagavad Gita or this message from the Baha'i faith, which I once "investigated" myself:

Throughout history, God has revealed Himself to humanity through a series of divine Messengers, whose teachings guide and educate us and provide the basis for the advancement of human society. These Messengers have included Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. Their religions come from the same Source and are in essence successive chapters of one religion from God.

Bahá’u’lláh, the latest of these Messengers, brought new spiritual and social teachings for our time. His essential message is of unity. He taught the oneness of God, the oneness of the human family, and the oneness of religion.

http://www.bahai.org/

It's founder, Bahá’u’lláh has received revelations which his followers regard as comparable to the Bible or, for us, the Book of Mormon.

The church was founded around the same time as the LDS church, and there are many parallels of claims of "restoration", of being reserved for these end times, etc.

Intellectually, how would one determine which church is "correct" or "true"? Based on the claims of its adherents? Based on the terms of their scriptures themselves? Based on history or culture- or because one was born into the belief?

Based on "general revelation" which shows us that there must be a God because of the majesty of nature? Surely that may show that there is a God- of course there are always other explanations possible- but that is not the question. The question is: WHICH WORKS OF ALLEGED SCRIPTURE ARE IN FACT SCRIPTURE FROM GOD? How does one determine that?

Rob has no answer other than those I already listed.

There is no way to determine which is "correct" based on any of those claims- all those are circular, and are essentially the same for all these faiths.

There is only one which claims that God himself will tell you that his church is true. That is what sets us apart from all others- and that is the key to it all.

Unless Rob has more to say to me on this issue, I won't bother him any more about it. At this point, I think there is nothing more he CAN say on it. He has already shown that.

[mfbukowski]

.... counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy 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.

I have never bought into the idea that "anything published by the church is doctrine" Notice that the statement does not say that at all. What it DOES say is that the 15 "counsel together to establish doctrine", and that doctrine is "proclaimed" in church publications.

It does not say that everything published is doctrine- it arguably MIGHT say that all doctrine is published in church publications, but note that DOCTRINE IS A SUBSET of all that is published by the church.

The fact that all holders of the Mormon Priesthood are Mormon, does not imply that all Mormons are Priesthood holders Priesthood holders are a smaller subset of Mormons.

So too with published doctrine. All things published by the church are not doctrine any more than all Mormons are Priesthood holders.

Concluding that all publications by the church are "doctrine" is the same fallacy as saying that all Mormons are Priesthood holders.

Note it specifically says that "doctrine RESIDES in the standard works", and Declarations and Proclamations and Articles of Faith.

To me, what that statement is saying is that other things published by the church may or may not be doctrinal- but obviously doctrine RESIDES in those specific documents.

I don't know how you can dispute it. That is what it says.

[mfbukowski]

Since I have told you more than once that this is not my position, your continuing to say it is now clearly bearing false witness against me.

If I have done that, I am sorry. Now you get to apologize for "bearing false witness" against us repeatedly and actually repenting of your actions.

You publish what is "not our position" continuously. At least I apologized.

[Ares]

Folks,

Sometimes its not what you say that gets you in trouble- it is how you say it.

Don't accuse someone of evading an answer if indeed they answered and the answer was unsatisfactory. You can simply say the answer was unsatisfactory.

On the other hand if someone says your answer was unsatisfactory don't evade having to explain yourself by claiming you already answered.

[mfbukowski]

Folks,

Sometimes its not what you say that gets you in trouble- it is how you say it.

Don't accuse someone of evading an answer if indeed they answered and the answer was unsatisfactory. You can simply say the answer was unsatisfactory.

On the other hand if someone says your answer was unsatisfactory don't evade having to explain yourself by claiming you already answered.

Ares for ambassador to some middle-Eastern country!

You got it!

[altersteve]

Nice, but irrelevant. The newsroom web article is not itself LDS doctrine by its own standard! That is, the newsroom article is not part of LDS scripture and is not an official declaration or proclamation of the First Presidency (is it?). In any case, Joseph Smith presented his statements in the KFD as essential truths about God and expressly claimed that he was making those statements in his capacity as a prophet.

It's not a "doctrinal" statement on doctrine, but it is an authoritative press release from the Church. Doctrinal instructional manuals are not authoritatve. They are guides only.

And if you want to claim Joseph made his statements "in his capacity as a prophet," then we may as well bring up the fact that Brigham Young made his statements about Adam-God "in his capacity as a prophet" too, but how Adam-God is traditionally understood isn't doctrine either. Neither is how the King Follett sermon traditionally understood.

Edited November 4, 2011 by altersteve

[Log]

When I was investigating Mormonism, I read through the TPJS, including the KFD. I was astounded at the depth and breadth of what I read, and the Spirit of God witnessed to my heart and my mind that Joseph was a true prophet of God.

For what it's worth.

[CV75]

Nice, but irrelevant. The newsroom web article is not itself LDS doctrine by its own standard! That is, the newsroom article is not part of LDS scripture and is not an official declaration or proclamation of the First Presidency (is it?). In any case, Joseph Smith presented his statements in the KFD as essential truths about God and expressly claimed that he was making those statements in his capacity as a prophet.

Which statement do you find the most offending?

[cinepro]

To me, what that statement is saying is that other things published by the church may or may not be doctrinal- but obviously doctrine RESIDES in those specific documents.

I don't know how you can dispute it. That is what it says.

We should also keep in mind the role correlation plays in helping us to know what "doctrine" is.

As we were taught in Sunday School:

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve oversee correlation in the Church. Correlation includes:

A. Maintaining purity of doctrine.

B. Emphasizing the importance of the family and the home.

C. Placing all the work of the Church under priesthood direction.

D. Establishing proper relationships among the organizations of the Church.

E. Achieving unity and order in the Church.

F. Ensuring simplicity of Church programs and materials.

1. 
   So I think it's easy to underestimate the degree to which everything published in correlated materials represents "official doctrine". If one of the stated goals is to "maintain the purity of doctrine", then unpure doctrine in correlated materials would signal a failure of the correlation process.

Edited November 4, 2011 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

So I think it's easy to underestimate the degree to which everything published in correlated materials represents "official doctrine". If one of the stated goals is to "maintain the purity of doctrine", then unpure doctrine in correlated materials would signal a failure of the correlation process.

I just want to raise the point though, that if it is NOT doctrinal that: (it is doctrine that a stated goal of correlation is purity of doctrine) that such a failure would NOT signal such a failure at all. Of doctrine.

[KevinG]

It is also easy to misunderestimate the power of individual members to verify every church publication and prophetic utterance by the power of the Holy Ghost.

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually. -Brigham young JOD 9 p.151