False Doctrine in GC?

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by woot

Pres, Kimball's statement that "Some of you here today will be present at the second coming"

Link?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

WHy can't it be called Lebowski bashing? You are both dirty in this, from my point of view. I think we may have to put your desks on opposite sides of the room.

Guilty as charged. I suppose I "started it" with the peanut comment. Maybe I felt a little justified since he, SoCal, and Arch unkindly shoved themselves into a perfectly civil debate between me and woot in another thread. And, Leb has never answered my question.

I'm happy to stop with the pissing contests. But after all these months and a few thousand posts, I'm not convinced the "other side" is. I confess I haven't yet developed enough self-discipline to just not respond to their bombast.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And back then, most folks wouldn't have batted an eye at those issues. Because they were the status quo. And some folks vigorously defend the status quo, no matter what.

I've already explained why I think standards were different in those days. It takes a lot of gall to judge those prophets by today's policies and practices.

The point is, you really have nothing significant to complain about today. Why you all choose to latch on to a few centuries-old statements is truly beyond me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I've already explained why I think standards were different in those days. It takes a lot of gall to judge those prophets by today's policies and practices.

The point is, you really have nothing significant to complain about today. Why you all choose to latch on to a few centuries-old statements is truly beyond me.

Says you.

No, the point is, one has to got back a few decades to find something that even mullahs have to concede was misguided. That's the funny thing about the passage of time. It changes and clarifies things. If we were to pull something out of modern times as an example, you would simply deny it is misguided or wrong and that would be that. But 30 years from now, you may be singing a different tune. You oft-repeated challenge of "show me something recent" is yet another weak dodge. The question under debate was prophetic infallibility. Your statute of limitations defense is essentially a concession of defeat.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Says you.

No, the point is, one has to got back a few decades to find something that even mullahs have to concede was misguided. That's the funny thing about the passage of time. It changes and clarifies things. If we were to pull something out of modern times as an example, you would simply deny it is misguided or wrong and that would be that. But 30 years from now, you may be singing a different tune.

So what I'm hearing is, you're on the SoCal bandwagon: that GC is riddled with falsehoods on the order of Adam-God, etc., that we simply lack the sophistication to recognize. It's an interesting place to sit.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You oft-repeated challenge of "show me something recent" is yet another weak dodge. The question under debate was prophetic infallibility. Your statute of limitations defense is essentially a concession of defeat.

The constant problem for you is, I never said the prophet was infallible. I'm trying to decide if I should be shocked or not that you continue to miss that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

So what I'm hearing is, you're on the SoCal bandwagon: that GC is riddled with falsehoods on the order of Adam-God, etc., that we simply lack the sophistication to recognize. It's an interesting place to sit.

For one who whines so incessantly about folks putting words in your mouth, you sure enjoy building those caricatures.

Originally Posted by Tex

The constant problem for you is, I never said the prophet was infallible. I'm trying to decide if I should be shocked or not that you continue to miss that.

Oh, excuse me. You said that the "prophet would never lead us astray." And your definition of "astray" also has a statute of limitations. Like about 20 minutes. And here we go again, round and round.

No thanks.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

For one who whines so incessantly about folks putting words in your mouth, you sure enjoy building those caricatures.

It's not a caricature. That's my legimate understanding of what you and SoCal said. If you meant something different, don't expect me to read your mind. Let me ask you:

Do you deny that the leadership's approach to General Conference, and the doctrines taught in General Conference itself, has changed at ALL since Brigham Young's time? Or are we just singing the same song, different line 150 years later?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Oh, excuse me. You said that the "prophet would never lead us astray." And your definition of "astray" also has a statute of limitations. Like about 20 minutes. And here we go again, round and round.

No thanks.

And we're right back to the pissing contest. That lasted about 20 seconds. Good show, Leb.

For the record, it wasn't me that said "the prophet would never lead us astray," it was the prophets (see below). It's not my fault you can't reconcile your beliefs with theirs.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Tex

So what I'm hearing is, you're on the SoCal bandwagon: that GC is riddled with falsehoods on the order of Adam-God, etc., that we simply lack the sophistication to recognize. It's an interesting place to sit.



The constant problem for you is, I never said the prophet was infallible. I'm trying to decide if I should be shocked or not that you continue to miss that.

Just for kicks and giggles why don't you show us a few examples of why you don't believe in the infallibility of Mormon prophets Tex.

I think you fit nicely the old mantra that says Catholics say the Pope is infallible but nobody believes it, Mormons say the prophet is fallable but nobody believes it.

I think the ban on women holding the priesthood is something taught today that will be looked on as false doctrine in the same way we view the ban on blacks. Further light and knowledge indeed

The problem with your position is that it says the church could not be relied upon or trusted to speak for God until the last 15-20 years. You may not have a problem with that but those without a burning bush experience may find it disturbing.

[Taq Man]

Adam/God, Blood atonement, and death to the Government of the United States of America were not just taught from the pulpit, they were incorporated into the temple ceremony (Out of respect for believers I won't post a link). This is more serious in my opinion than GC statements. The temple ceremony is supposedly direct revelation from God to Joseph Smith. Interesting that it had an infusion of false doctrine courtesy of Brigham Young.

I really cannot see how a reasonable person can just dismiss this as the church experiencing growing pains. Either it was direct revelation from God or it wasn't. Time and perspective do not change that.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

Just for kicks and giggles why don't you show us a few examples of why you don't believe in the infallibility of Mormon prophets Tex.

I think you fit nicely the old mantra that says Catholics say the Pope is infallible but nobody believes it, Mormons say the prophet is fallable but nobody believes it.

The racist teachings by some LDS leaders that blacks were less valiant, sinned against God, or rejected the priesthood in the pre-existence were fundamentally without doctrinal basis and should never have been taught.

Originally Posted by Taq Man

I think the ban on women holding the priesthood is something taught today that will be looked on as false doctrine in the same way we view the ban on blacks. Further light and knowledge indeed

If so, it will happen via a revelation. And just for clarity, the rationale behind women and the priesthood, and blacks and the priesthood is sharply different.

Originally Posted by Taq Man

The problem with your position is that it says the church could not be relied upon or trusted to speak for God until the last 15-20 years. You may not have a problem with that but those without a burning bush experience may find it disturbing.

Incorrect. Two thoughts.

1. We view prophetic statements of the past through the lenses of prophetic statements today, and not the other way around. We pay attention to (and are held accountable for) the doctrine and teachings of men selected by God to lead us in our day, not in some past era.

2. As a basic rule of history, we don't judge the church culture of times past by today's standards. Search for some of my thoughts on the Japanese internment camps to see what I mean.