Why Aren't Mormons Christian?

[ERayR]

SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible

 

Joseph felt that creeds set limits, “and say ‘hitherto shalt thou come & no further’ — which I cannot subscribe to.”

He explained that the difference between the Christian sects and The Latter Day Saints was that the sectarians

 

“were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein; whereas the Latter Day Saints had no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.” (Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman, p. 285)

[JLHPROF]

Joseph felt that creeds set limits, “and say ‘hitherto shalt thou come & no further’ — which I cannot subscribe to.”

He explained that the difference between the Christian sects and The Latter Day Saints was that the sectarians

 

“were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein; whereas the Latter Day Saints had no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.” (Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman, p. 285)

 

I love that, but I have to say that is NOT the approach of most LDS members, as evidenced by the silly "it's not official" argument.

Truth is truth and whether it is official (D&C 130 for example) or not (King Follett for example) wouldn't have mattered to Joseph.

 

Oh yes, Mormons of today have their constraining creeds too...

[Teancum]

It isn't just me.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-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.

 

The KFD has never gone through Common Consent of the Church.

 

As noted nor has the newsroom statement. It is not canon.  It has not even been quoted in numerous manuals, Ensign article, at conference, etc.  The KFS Is doctrine and to argue it is not is simple disingenuous.

 

As a believing Mormon do you reject it?

[Teancum]

No it is isn't Canon or doctrine. What it does do is restate the doctrine of Common Consent.

 

So why should I rely on it if it is nor canon?  I cannot based on your position.

[ERayR]

I love that, but I have to say that is NOT the approach of most LDS members, as evidenced by the silly "it's not official" argument.

Truth is truth and whether it is official (D&C 130 for example) or not (King Follett for example) wouldn't have mattered to Joseph.

 

Oh yes, Mormons of today have their constraining creeds too...

 

As I stated before, I think, the "its not official" mantra is the desire to be accepted and they don't know how to explain the concept to someone who doesn't believe.  I think we need more "That is what I believe, you have my permission to believe or not believe" instead of a desperate scramble for their approval.

[Freedom]

As noted nor has the newsroom statement. It is not canon.  It has not even been quoted in numerous manuals, Ensign article, at conference, etc.  The KFS Is doctrine and to argue it is not is simple disingenuous.

 

As a believing Mormon do you reject it?

KFS is not doctrine. It is not canonized. It contains doctrine, but there are teachings within it that are not doctrine. This does not imply that such teachings are not true, but rather that they are not doctrine. There are many scientific hypothesis that may be true, but they do not have the weight of a scientific theory because they cannot be proven. 

[Freedom]

So why should I rely on it if it is nor canon?  I cannot based on your position.

You are kidding right? The news room statement is the official position of the church. The official position of the church is that the only source of doctrine is the scriptures and official proclamations. 

 

Consider the logical flaw in your argument by restating it as follows:

 

My statement: "Definitions of words used in my posts are based on Websters Dictionary."

Your response: "Your statement is not from the dictionary, therefore Websters dictionary is not the source of your definitions"

 

Do you see how obviously ridiculous your criticism is? 

[Freedom]

I love that, but I have to say that is NOT the approach of most LDS members, as evidenced by the silly "it's not official" argument.

Truth is truth and whether it is official (D&C 130 for example) or not (King Follett for example) wouldn't have mattered to Joseph.

 

Oh yes, Mormons of today have their constraining creeds too...

I do not find it to be a silly argument. King Follett is not official and I do not believe much of it as being true. This does not mean that I disagree with what it says, only that I do not take it as irrefutable fact. It is speculation without supporting evidence. It may be true, but I suspect it is an oversimplification of reality. Truth is truth, this is true, but truth can only be proven to be truth with supporting evidence. If you can find supporting evidence for King Follett in the scriptures then I will accept it as truth. Until then it is not doctrine. 

[Teancum]

KFS is not doctrine. It is not canonized. It contains doctrine, but there are teachings within it that are not doctrine. This does not imply that such teachings are not true, but rather that they are not doctrine. There are many scientific hypothesis that may be true, but they do not have the weight of a scientific theory because they cannot be proven. 

 

yes the KFD is doctrine. 

 

Does not matter that it is not canonized.

 

LDS doctrine includes what they publish in manuals, books, speak from the conference pulpit and put in their official publications (Ensign, etc,)

 

To plead otherwise is simply not honest.  How can a church publish something then have its apologists claim it is not doctrine? 

 

The KFD is one of the MOST oft quoted and referenced things from the mouth is JS in LDS publications, etc.  It is doctrine.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Teancum

[ERayR]

I do not find it to be a silly argument. King Follett is not official and I do not believe much of it as being true. This does not mean that I disagree with what it says, only that I do not take it as irrefutable fact. It is speculation without supporting evidence. It may be true, but I suspect it is an oversimplification of reality. Truth is truth, this is true, but truth can only be proven to be truth with supporting evidence. If you can find supporting evidence for King Follett in the scriptures then I will accept it as truth. Until then it is not doctrine. 

 

It is okay that you do not believe much of it and no one is claiming irrefutability.   Nothing to do with religion is irrefutable.  We all believe what we do, about religion, through faith.  I for one have not claimed it was "official" doctrine but when I become bound by what is "official" then you have bound me to a creed.  I like Joseph Smith cannot subscribe to that.

Edited January 10, 2015 by ERayR

[Teancum]

You are kidding right? The news room statement is the official position of the church. The official position of the church is that the only source of doctrine is the scriptures and official proclamations. 

 

Consider the logical flaw in your argument by restating it as follows:

 

My statement: "Definitions of words used in my posts are based on Websters Dictionary."

Your response: "Your statement is not from the dictionary, therefore Websters dictionary is not the source of your definitions"

 

Do you see how obviously ridiculous your criticism is? 

 

 

Based on your argument and others since it is not canonized it is not doctrine.  Why are other published items not doctrine or official but this is? 

 

Oh I see, because it helps the church and its defenders wiggle out of things they do not want to defend.

 

If the newsroom statement is official how about the FP put their name to it.  They seem very reluctant to do that these days.

Wonder why that is?

[ERayR]

yes the KFD is doctrine. 

 

Does not matter that it is not canonized.

 

LDS doctrine includes what they publish in manuals, books, speak from the conference pulpit and put in their official publications (Ensign, etc,)

 

To plead otherwise is simply not honest.  How can a church publish something then have its apologists claim it is not doctrine? 

 

The KFD is one of the MOST oft quoted and referenced things from the mouth is JS in LDS publications, etc.  It is doctrine.

 

It is futile to argue what is or is not doctrine as the founder of the Church himself refused to be limited to the creeds of doctrine.  The better question is do you believe it to be true.  If you do own it and move on.  If you don't reject it and move on. 

[JLHPROF]

I do not find it to be a silly argument. King Follett is not official and I do not believe much of it as being true. This does not mean that I disagree with what it says, only that I do not take it as irrefutable fact. It is speculation without supporting evidence. It may be true, but I suspect it is an oversimplification of reality. Truth is truth, this is true, but truth can only be proven to be truth with supporting evidence. If you can find supporting evidence for King Follett in the scriptures then I will accept it as truth. Until then it is not doctrine. 

 

There is no such thing as "proof" where religion is concerned.

To say "but truth can only be proven to be truth with supporting evidence. If you can find supporting evidence for King Follett in the scriptures then I will accept it as truth" makes no sense in a religious point of view.

 

Where is the "proof" of the three degrees of glory?  Where is the proof of the temple endowment?   Where is the proof of the resurrection?  Religion is a matter of faith, not proof.

I have as much faith in the KFD as anything in the scriptures because I believe both came from the mouths of prophets.

And neither of them have irrefutable proof.

[Freedom]

There is no such thing as "proof" where religion is concerned.

To say "but truth can only be proven to be truth with supporting evidence. If you can find supporting evidence for King Follett in the scriptures then I will accept it as truth" makes no sense in a religious point of view.

 

Where is the "proof" of the three degrees of glory?  Where is the proof of the temple endowment?   Where is the proof of the resurrection?  Religion is a matter of faith, not proof.

I have as much faith in the KFD as anything in the scriptures because I believe both came from the mouths of prophets.

And neither of them have irrefutable proof.

The proof, from a doctrinal perspective, is the canon. It is the scriptures. If it is not supported by the scriptures then it is not doctrine. The proof in science is empirical evidence. The proof in mormonism is The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Perl of Great Price, the Bible, and the official proclamations. I cannot find a reference in the scriptures that states that God was once a man, therefore this is not doctrine and I do not accept it as truth. 

[Freedom]

Based on your argument and others since it is not canonized it is not doctrine.  Why are other published items not doctrine or official but this is? 

 

Oh I see, because it helps the church and its defenders wiggle out of things they do not want to defend.

 

If the newsroom statement is official how about the FP put their name to it.  They seem very reluctant to do that these days.

Wonder why that is?

You are using a circular argument. The church has established the sources of its doctrines. It has repeated the same point over and over again. You are trying to wiggle out of things by refusing to accept what we accept as official doctrine. All doctrine is established by common consent. This is clearly set out in the scriptures. Keep hitting your head against the wall by creating your own strawman arguments. You are not authorized to decide what is doctrine or not so I do not put much value in your opinion. 

[Teancum]

You are using a circular argument. The church has established the sources of its doctrines. It has repeated the same point over and over again. You are trying to wiggle out of things by refusing to accept what we accept as official doctrine. All doctrine is established by common consent. This is clearly set out in the scriptures. Keep hitting your head against the wall by creating your own strawman arguments. You are not authorized to decide what is doctrine or not so I do not put much value in your opinion. 

 

 

I am not trying to wiggle out of anything. I have been LDS for 56 years.... well 48 from my baptismal day....

 

I have defended LDS doctrine. I have argues with the critics.  Now I am a skeptic.  But for any LDS to argue that the teachings found in Joseph Smith's sermon about God being a man and men becoming gods... well it is astounding.

 

Latter day Saints used to be proud of their unique doctrines.  Now they simply want to weasel out of them.  And I used to do it as a hobby apologist.  Then I realized how dishonest I was.

 

Where is BC Space?  He is one of the few honest defenders willing to own it all. Apparently you are not.

[JLHPROF]

The proof, from a doctrinal perspective, is the canon. It is the scriptures. If it is not supported by the scriptures then it is not doctrine. The proof in science is empirical evidence. The proof in mormonism is The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Perl of Great Price, the Bible, and the official proclamations. I cannot find a reference in the scriptures that states that God was once a man, therefore this is not doctrine and I do not accept it as truth. 

 

And we're back again to creeds...just like our traditional counterparts.  Joseph was right, they do cause us to reject truth.

[Freedom]

And we're back again to creeds...just like our traditional counterparts.  Joseph was right, they do cause us to reject truth.

Not at all. If you do not have a standard by with to judge something is true then nothing is true. You also need to distinguish between doctrine and truth. As I have stated before, not all doctrine is truth and not all truth is doctrine. king Follett is not doctrine. This does not mean it is not true, but it is not doctrine. We currently have no way of knowing whether it is true. The only way to know if it is true is if God says so, and God speaks through his prophets. 

[Freedom]

I am not trying to wiggle out of anything. I have been LDS for 56 years.... well 48 from my baptismal day....

 

I have defended LDS doctrine. I have argues with the critics.  Now I am a skeptic.  But for any LDS to argue that the teachings found in Joseph Smith's sermon about God being a man and men becoming gods... well it is astounding.

 

Latter day Saints used to be proud of their unique doctrines.  Now they simply want to weasel out of them.  And I used to do it as a hobby apologist.  Then I realized how dishonest I was.

 

Where is BC Space?  He is one of the few honest defenders willing to own it all. Apparently you are not.

I am proud of my doctrines as they are found in the scriptures. I have never said that God was never a man, all I am saying is that this is not an official doctrine of our church. We do not know the nature of god in the distant past because it has not been relieved. I am distinguishing between what may be true and what may be doctrine. King Follett is not a source of doctrine. This discussion is about definitions, not about the nature of God. I do not have an issue with the idea that God was once a man. It may well be the case. I do know, however, that this teaching is not found in our scriptures at this time. 

[JLHPROF]

Not at all. If you do not have a standard by with to judge something is true then nothing is true. You also need to distinguish between doctrine and truth. As I have stated before, not all doctrine is truth and not all truth is doctrine. king Follett is not doctrine. This does not mean it is not true, but it is not doctrine. We currently have no way of knowing whether it is true. The only way to know if it is true is if God says so, and God speaks through his prophets. 

 

Joseph taught that if you could gaze into heaven for 5 minutes you would know more than was ever written on the subject (that includes in the scriptures).

 

Since I have a testimony that Joseph gazed into heaven on multiple occasions, including seeing God the Father face to face I will take his teachings on the subject over ANY scriptural references.  He actually saw God, talked to God, saw heaven, saw Christ, conversed with Christ etc.

 

First hand witness - Best canon there is.

[Freedom]

Joseph taught that if you could gaze into heaven for 5 minutes you would know more than was ever written on the subject (that includes in the scriptures).

 

Since I have a testimony that Joseph gazed into heaven on multiple occasions, including seeing God the Father face to face I will take his teachings on the subject over ANY scriptural references.  He actually saw God, talked to God, saw heaven, saw Christ, conversed with Christ etc.

 

First hand witness - Best canon there is.

So let me get this straight. You place KFD, a document that has never been presented as scripture by the author, over scripture which HAS been presented as scripture by the author. Ok, what ever. You take it over D&C which Joseph Smith claims he got directly from God. 

 

Since, in the king follett discourse, he never claimed his comments were based on what he personally saw in heaven your logic falls apart. Joseph said a lot of things that are now seen as less than accurate. And just because he looked into heaven this does not mean he understood what he saw. I can be an eye witness of mount Seymour, this does not mean I know how long it has been there or how it was formed. You are free to accept this discourse as scripture but I do not. 

[ERayR]

So let me get this straight. You place KFD, a document that has never been presented as scripture by the author, over scripture which HAS been presented as scripture by the author. Ok, what ever. You take it over D&C which Joseph Smith claims he got directly from God. 

 

Since, in the king follett discourse, he never claimed his comments were based on what he personally saw in heaven your logic falls apart. Joseph said a lot of things that are now seen as less than accurate. And just because he looked into heaven this does not mean he understood what he saw. I can be an eye witness of mount Seymour, this does not mean I know how long it has been there or how it was formed. You are free to accept this discourse as scripture but I do not. 

 

Are we reading the same posts?

[JLHPROF]

So let me get this straight. You place KFD, a document that has never been presented as scripture by the author, over scripture which HAS been presented as scripture by the author. Ok, what ever. You take it over D&C which Joseph Smith claims he got directly from God. 

 

Since, in the king follett discourse, he never claimed his comments were based on what he personally saw in heaven your logic falls apart. Joseph said a lot of things that are now seen as less than accurate. And just because he looked into heaven this does not mean he understood what he saw. I can be an eye witness of mount Seymour, this does not mean I know how long it has been there or how it was formed. You are free to accept this discourse as scripture but I do not. 

 

Definition of scripture - word of God or the teachings of his prophets.   I see no reason why the teachings of the prophet Paul or the prophet Moroni should be given more credence than the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith.  There was NO canon in the days of Paul or Moroni.  It's a modern invention.  They worked by revelation and so did Joseph.

 

I believe 100% of Josephs actual teachings (false records about quakers on the moon aside).  If Joseph Smith actually taught it I believe it.

 

Wilford Woodruff (President)

 

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.” When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the written oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day.” “And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.”  (Conference Report, October 1897, p.22-23)

Edited January 10, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Freedom]

I disagree with you. A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as a prophet. Are you aware that Joseph taught the trinity? If you apply this standard to everything Joseph Smith said, you have to apply this to every thing every other modern day prophet has said. You will find yourself in a bit if a pickle if you take this point of view. 

[ERayR]

I disagree with you. A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as a prophet. Are you aware that Joseph taught the trinity? If you apply this standard to everything Joseph Smith said, you have to apply this to every thing every other modern day prophet has said. You will find yourself in a bit if a pickle if you take this point of view. 

 

Another truism that is overused.  It has gotten to be code for "I don't want to accept this so it must be that prophets opinion".