Does the Church Misrepresent Past Prophets?

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

In my experiences, My Heavenly Father would not.  So...either I conformed..or worshiped  a different Father.

With my family I have moved to using the label "My God" to distinguish this.  It typically becomes necessary in any discussion where a persons inner morality clashes with the morality of the Mormon taught god.

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

 

I've often wondered why Jesus tortured the Hebrew Scriptures to suit His purposes.   I mean, He is God, after all.

 

31 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So the members of the Correlation Committee are on the same level with Jesus?

Yet another drive-by dig at the Church of Jesus Christ.

All part of consig's "faith journey" [cough, cough, hack, hack}, I suppose.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, salgare said:

With my family I have moved to using the label "My God" to distinguish this.  It typically becomes necessary in any discussion where a persons inner morality clashes with the morality of the Mormon taught god.

In the Cecil B. DeMille move "The Ten Commanments," (the one starring Charleton Heston), there is a scene where the Egyptian pharoah is compelled to acknowledge at long last, "Moses's god is God."

As a parallel, I declare that "the Mormon-taught God" is God.

 

[salgare]

1 hour ago, jwhitlock said:

So let's be clear. Your accusation that the church purposely, willfully, and profusely misrepresents things is false. It's easy for enemies of the church, such as yourself, to pick out things like this and draw great swelling conclusions about how Heavenly Father would never do anything like that. It's also easy for people who enjoy shallow sound bites and don't particularly want to understand things beyond their own preconceived notions to agree with you.

Hint ... Honesty, integrity, transparency. 

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

"Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house."

These are good fruits.
 

Edited December 30, 2015 by salgare

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, salgare said:

With my family I have moved to using the label "My God" to distinguish this.  It typically becomes necessary in any discussion where a persons inner morality clashes with the morality of the Mormon taught god.

Exactly..When people ask me if I still believe in God, I say that I do..(and I do) just not the Mormon God. 

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So you think Brigham Young would be okay with the modern Church disavowing his teachings?

The same Brigham Young who almost excommunicated Orson Pratt for challenging his Adam God Doctrine?

This must be a different Brigham Young from the one I read about in history . . .

I absolutely think Brigham Young, today, would be okay with the modern Church disavowing his teachings. Nothing can touch him now! I imagine Brigham Young is far more advanced in such matters now than he ever was.

15 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

When Brigham Young delivered the sermon, there were no paragraphs for his audience to hear.

And do you dispute that quoting only the line immediately prior changes the meaning of what Brigham Young intended?

With such a rigid context, it is amazing that any sentence(s) of the sermon was included at all, and that any of it is any good for a modern audience reading it! Who knows what transitional gestures he made; non-verbal cues; how much time elapsed between the sentences; the accuracy of the order and the recording; etc.?

Quoting only the one line serves the purposes of the manual, which are guided by the same keys held by President Young, and which are the most important for this modern audience. who really knows what he meant, anyway -- isn't that part of the reason the entire sermon isn't used, the theory associated with it was disavowed, etc.?

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You are Exhibit A as to why I gave up apologetics, Scott.

I've never seen you engage in apologetics in any meaningful way, but if you at one time did and then gave it up, I have my theories as to why, which I won't go into here.

Quote

You will do anything you can in order to avoid answering the question.

This is pure crap. I answered your question and did so readily.

Quote

And then when you are forced to it, you will finally give an answer that nobody would accept who wasn't already committed to your position.

I wasn't "forced to it," and the fact that you yourself don't like my answer is no indication that others won't accept it.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Exactly..When people ask me if I still believe in God, I say that I do..(and I do) just not the Mormon God. 

I repeat: The "Mormon God" is God.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

A few years back, as part of its series of manuals on the teachings of the presidents of the church, the LDS Church published a manual devoted to Brigham Young.

The manual is filled with quotes from Brigham Young on various subjects, taken in large measure from his sermons contained in the Journal of Discourses.

In at least one instance, I believe the manual takes a quote out of context in order to give a false impression.  It is regarding Brigham Young's teachings about "Father in Heaven."

Here is the quote:

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth [see Hebrews 12:9]; 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 (DBY, 24). 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-4?lang=eng

There is nothing unusual about this quote, and it fits quite well with current correlated Mormon doctrine.

But there is a problem with using the quote in this way.

The problem is that the context of the quote is the most famous public teaching Brigham Young ever gave on the Adam God Doctrine.

It is from the 1852 sermon where Brigham Young first proclaimed the doctrine publicly.

And when I say it is taken out of context, I mean the immediate context.

Here is the sentence quoted in the manual from the original sermon, and I include what Brigham Young said immediately afterward:

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.

http://www.journalofdiscourses.com/1/8

In an attempt to demonstrate Brigham Young’s orthodoxy, the manual lifts this one snippet from the most famous Adam God discourse on record. And the manual makes no mention of the fact that, when Brigham Young says that “our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were” upon this earth, he is talking about Adam!

Does this constitute an instance of the LDS Church misrepresenting the teachings of past prophets?

 

 

Much of that manual is an exercise in adjusting BY's teachings to fit the current accepted doctrine of the church -- they had to adjust his teachings to remove the references to polygamy.  The out-of-context quote you've provided doesn't surprise me.  I'm not sure if I'd call it "misrepresenting past prophets".  It's just the Church's ongoing efforts to make past teachings fit current doctrines and understanding.

 

[salgare]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the Cecil B. DeMille move "The Ten Commanments," (the one starring Charleton Heston), there is a scene where the Egyptian pharoah is compelled to acknowledge at long last, "Moses's god is God."

As a parallel, I declare that "the Mormon-taught God" is God.

 

yep, like I said, typically this need comes up over actions of an immoral god.  And they don't get much nastier than the god of the OT.

Edited December 30, 2015 by salgare

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Why would a loving Heavenly Father do something like that?

Gosh I thought you knew the church was made up of men.

You didn't know that?

Same old stuff.  Prophet x said something that is now interpreted differently.  Big wow.  Prophet y said something that conflicts with prophet x. Big wow.

Now that makes God inconsistent?

Wow!

How many times do we have to go over this same topic???

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Much of that manual is an exercise in adjusting BY's teachings to fit the current accepted doctrine of the church -- they had to adjust his teachings to remove the references to polygamy.  The out-of-context quote you've provided doesn't surprise me.  I'm not sure if I'd call it "misrepresenting past prophets".  It's just the Church's ongoing efforts to make past teachings fit current doctrines and understanding.

 

It is not self-evident that the quote in the manual is out of context, your matter-of-fact tone notwithstanding.

And the quotes with "references to polygamy" (reflecting conditions and circumstances at the time the statements were made) apply just as well to monogamous marriages in the 21st century as they did to marriages in the 19th century, even where plurality of wives was practiced.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, jwhitlock said:

And here we have the summary of your agenda, which is to find any way - no matter how tenuous - to undermine the church and "prove" that it is false.

Sounds like those of similar mind are agreeing with you on this thread.

So let's be clear. Your accusation that the church purposely, willfully, and profusely misrepresents things is false. It's easy for enemies of the church, such as yourself, to pick out things like this and draw great swelling conclusions about how Heavenly Father would never do anything like that. It's also easy for people who enjoy shallow sound bites and don't particularly want to understand things beyond their own preconceived notions to agree with you.

And each thread is exactly the SAME ISSUE.

Conflicts between prophets or interpretations!!

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, salgare said:

yep, like I said, typically this need comes up over actions of an immoral god.  And they don't get much nastier than the god of the OT.

The God of the Old Testament is the Savior and Redeemer of the New Testament.

 

[salgare]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repeat: The "Mormon God" is God.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66700-do-apostates-go-to-spirit-prison/?do=findComment&comment=1209573077

"Sir, what you had there was what we refer to as a Focused, Non-Terminal, Repeating Phantasm, or a Class 5 Full-Roaming Vapor . . . a real nasty one too"

[salgare]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Gosh I thought you knew the church was made up of men.

You didn't know that?

Same old stuff.  Prophet x said something that is now interpreted differently.  Big wow.  Prophet y said something that conflicts with prophet x. Big wow.

Now that makes God inconsistent?

Wow!

How many times do we have to go over this same topic???

please weight in here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/

 

[salgare]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The God of the Old Testament is the Savior and Redeemer of the New Testament.

 

So they say

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, salgare said:

So they say

So say I.

 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So say I.

 

So say we all.

Now let's go kill some Cylons.

[salgare]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So say we all.

Now let's go kill some Cylons.

Here Here!

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So say we all.

Now let's go kill some Cylons.

And only the best wear this uniform -- is that you?

[The Nehor]

I dislike agreeing with Consig but I really dislike the President of the Church manuals. While there are some gems there there is a lot of pablum. They are filled with ellipses and watered down teachings taken in isolation even when they are not misleading and they are too often misleading. If I was in charge each week we would tackle a full sermon or talk given by the prophet instead of the silly topical chapters in which editors have to quote mine and shoehorn everything in. I would avoid Adam God sermons and stuff about blood atonement and the like but there are plenty of good meaty talks given by prophets to sink our teeth into that would not stir up controversy and would enlighten.

Then again I believe that if we had good teachers and good students we would use the scriptures and conference talks by apostles and not need manuals or anything else.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I dislike agreeing with Consig but I really dislike the President of the Church manuals. While there are some gems there there is a lot of pablum. They are filled with ellipses and watered down teachings taken in isolation even when they are not misleading and they are too often misleading. If I was in charge each week we would tackle a full sermon or talk given by the prophet instead of the silly topical chapters in which editors have to quote mine and shoehorn everything in. I would avoid Adam God sermons and stuff about blood atonement and the like but there are plenty of good meaty talks given by prophets to sink our teeth into that would not stir up controversy and would enlighten.

Then again I believe that if we had good teachers and good students we would use the scriptures and conference talks by apostles and not need manuals or anything else.

I agree for the most part.  I would say we have good enough teachers and students to go ahead without all the manuals now. 

[salgare]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I dislike agreeing with Consig but I really dislike the President of the Church manuals. While there are some gems there there is a lot of pablum. They are filled with ellipses and watered down teachings taken in isolation even when they are not misleading and they are too often misleading. If I was in charge each week we would tackle a full sermon or talk given by the prophet instead of the silly topical chapters in which editors have to quote mine and shoehorn everything in. I would avoid Adam God sermons and stuff about blood atonement and the like but there are plenty of good meaty talks given by prophets to sink our teeth into that would not stir up controversy and would enlighten.

Then again I believe that if we had good teachers and good students we would use the scriptures and conference talks by apostles and not need manuals or anything else.

oh how I used to yearn for a modern day School of the Prophets.

" 133 Art thou a brother or brethren? I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship, in a determination that is fixed, immovable, and unchangeable, to be your friend and brother through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever. Amen."

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I dislike agreeing with Consig but I really dislike the President of the Church manuals. While there are some gems there there is a lot of pablum. They are filled with ellipses and watered down teachings taken in isolation even when they are not misleading and they are too often misleading. If I was in charge each week we would tackle a full sermon or talk given by the prophet instead of the silly topical chapters in which editors have to quote mine and shoehorn everything in. I would avoid Adam God sermons and stuff about blood atonement and the like but there are plenty of good meaty talks given by prophets to sink our teeth into that would not stir up controversy and would enlighten.

Then again I believe that if we had good teachers and good students we would use the scriptures and conference talks by apostles and not need manuals or anything else.

Use of ellipses is not necessarily misleading; there are legitimate and reasonable uses for ellipses. I myself use them frequently in quotations, but not if I think it is going to alter the meaning or intent of the original.

And while few things in life are flawless or perfect, it is not an established fact that the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals are, by and large, misleading.

You said you "dislike agreeing with Consig." Are you, in fact, expressing specific agreement with him here or merely venting about your dislike for the manuals?