Gordon B. Hinckley's anti-Christian remark

[_SatanWasSetUp]

No Mr. Coffee, its really all about the fact that you can't stand GBH or anybody else taking a strong and settled stand on anything having to do with the really serious questions of our existence here on this earth at all. It really bothers you. Indeed, it makes who furious. Who are these Mormons to say 'a' is right and 'b' is wrong?

GBH is doing nothing more or less than what most other religions have always done; he has claimed that certain things are true, certain things are not true, and that the system of belief of which he is a part has a much more complete and pure version of it than others do. He speaks it with love and civility, and perhaps that is what really bothers you.

If GBH were not willing to make such statements regarding the truth value of the propositions and claims the Church makes about various things, he would have little credibility at all and just be another wishy washy Liberal Protestant that, like a fallen leaf, just follows the river and everything else carried along with it out to sea.

This thread isn't about whether Gordon B. Hinckley has a right to proclaim Mormon beliefs. Of course he does. That isn't the issue, Coggins. The question is, was Gordon B. Hinckley a hypocrite for accusing Chrisitians of following the creeds of man, while only a few sentences later claiming LDS get their knowledge through Joseph Smith. To me that seems ironic, perhaps hypocritical. However, you and Gazalem don't see a problem with it. We probably just need to agree to disagree. From an outsider perspective it seems that getting your knowledge through Joseph Smith means you are relying on statements of man, but it appears insiders don't see it that way. I suppose it's the same reason why Christians see no problem with the Nicean creed, but have a huge problem with accepting Joseph Smith's story.

Thinking more about what Hinckley said, and the fact that he had no problem saying it, and the reaction from TBMs, it really brings into perspective how much Mormonism relies on the character of Joseph Smith. It really is his church.

[_Coggins7]

This thread isn't about whether Gordon B. Hinckley has a right to proclaim Mormon beliefs. Of course he does. That isn't the issue, Coggins. The question is, was Gordon B. Hinckley a hypocrite for accusing Chrisitians of following the creeds of man, while only a few sentences later claiming LDS get their knowledge through Joseph Smith. To me that seems ironic, perhaps hypocritical. However, you and Gazalem don't see a problem with it. We probably just need to agree to disagree. From an outsider perspective it seems that getting your knowledge through Joseph Smith means you are relying on statements of man, but it appears insiders don't see it that way. I suppose it's the same reason why Christians see no problem with the Nicean creed, but have a huge problem with accepting Joseph Smith's story.

Thinking more about what Hinckley said, and the fact that he had no problem saying it, and the reaction from TBMs, it really brings into perspective how much Mormonism relies on the character of Joseph Smith. It really is his church.

In that case, we just need look at the claims for and origins of both. Joseph said his knowledge came from God and Angels. GBH, in saying that our teachings come from Joseph Smith, is therefore implying directly that such knowledge is based in divine revelation. The tactic of proposing that GBH is a hypocrite for doing exactly what the Third Century Fathers did with the creeds is disingenuous (well, imagine that around here) since anybody with a modicum of understanding of LDS doctrine knows perfectly well that any claims about Joseph regarding church teachings are ultimately claims about Joseph's calling as a Prophet. Indeed, were GBH actually saying what it is claimed in this thread he was saying, he would be undermining the core concepts of the origin of the Church as taught by that very institution.

We know, is some detail, exactly where the Christology of the creeds came from: the school or Alexandria, with which the Christian world was utterly saturated (among other influences) at that time. None of these men ever claimed for themselves to be passing on revealed knowledge or to hold the office of Apostle and Prophet, as did Joseph. The Nicean Creed was the product of decades of passionate, rancorous debate and argument, but hardly of divine revelation. Whether or not Joseph actually received revelation is another question, but GBH is not making any claim that Joseph originated church teachings. If so, he's just given the Church to Signature Books, and I don't think he has any plans of that kind.

[_Gazelam]

This thread isn't about whether Gordon B. Hinckley has a right to proclaim Mormon beliefs. Of course he does. That isn't the issue, Coggins. The question is, was Gordon B. Hinckley a hypocrite for accusing Chrisitians of following the creeds of man, while only a few sentences later claiming LDS get their knowledge through Joseph Smith. To me that seems ironic, perhaps hypocritical. However, you and Gazalem don't see a problem with it. We probably just need to agree to disagree. From an outsider perspective it seems that getting your knowledge through Joseph Smith means you are relying on statements of man, but it appears insiders don't see it that way. I suppose it's the same reason why Christians see no problem with the Nicean creed, but have a huge problem with accepting Joseph Smith's story.

Thinking more about what Hinckley said, and the fact that he had no problem saying it, and the reaction from TBMs, it really brings into perspective how much Mormonism relies on the character of Joseph Smith. It really is his church.

Let me reiterate. The creeds were written by a commitee. The First Vision and other statements were written by divine communion and are testaments to that divine communion.

Look at the ori9gins of the creeds and how they came to be writen, then look at where Joseph Smith received his beliefs and testimonies. After a visitation by the Father and the Son, Joseph received regular visits from Moroni, and following Moroni recieved instruction from John the Baptist, Adam, Enoch .....and on and on.

that's the difference.

[_harmony]

This thread isn't about whether Gordon B. Hinckley has a right to proclaim Mormon beliefs. Of course he does. That isn't the issue, Coggins. The question is, was Gordon B. Hinckley a hypocrite for accusing Chrisitians of following the creeds of man, while only a few sentences later claiming LDS get their knowledge through Joseph Smith. To me that seems ironic, perhaps hypocritical. However, you and Gazalem don't see a problem with it. We probably just need to agree to disagree. From an outsider perspective it seems that getting your knowledge through Joseph Smith means you are relying on statements of man, but it appears insiders don't see it that way. I suppose it's the same reason why Christians see no problem with the Nicean creed, but have a huge problem with accepting Joseph Smith's story.

Thinking more about what Hinckley said, and the fact that he had no problem saying it, and the reaction from TBMs, it really brings into perspective how much Mormonism relies on the character of Joseph Smith. It really is his church.

Let me reiterate. The creeds were written by a commitee. The First Vision and other statements were written by divine communion and are testaments to that divine communion.

Uhhhh... no they weren't. They were written by a known liar and con man.

Look at the ori9gins of the creeds and how they came to be writen, then look at where Joseph Smith received his beliefs and testimonies. After a visitation by the Father and the Son, Joseph received regular visits from Moroni, and following Moroni recieved instruction from John the Baptist, Adam, Enoch .....and on and on.

Yup, that's what he said all right. Just like he said he could locate buried treasure. Funny how that didn't turn out either. Just like he said Emma was his only wife.

[_Coggins7]

Uhhhh... no they weren't. They were written by a known liar and con man.

Uh, have you done what I suggested and seen your Bishop or SP about your true feelings regarding the Church and its founder yet? Isn't that sheep skin getting a tad funky as summer is nigh and it starts to warm up a bit?

My, what big teeth you have grandma...

[_harmony]

Uhhhh... no they weren't. They were written by a known liar and con man.

Uh, have you done what I suggested and seen your Bishop or SP about your true feelings regarding the Church and its founder yet? Isn't that sheep skin getting a tad funky as summer is nigh and it starts to warm up a bit?

My, what big teeth you have grandma...

I am not required to admire, worship, revere, or even like Joseph Smith in order to be an active temple recommend holder in this church, Loran. We've had this discussion before. Get past it.

[_Richard Dawkins]

jgh

[_Coggins7]

Uhhhh... no they weren't. They were written by a known liar and con man.

You called him a liar and a con man. Well, you are required to believe and accept him as none of these, and as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. If you do not accept those, then you do not accept core, basic, fundamental concepts central to the origin, authenticity, and ministerial authority of the LDS Church.

Therefore, it follows, that you do not accept the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as the legitimate church and kingdom of God. Indeed, you do not accept much of it, and cannot, as if Joseph was a liar and a con man, then most of what the church teaches, as it came from him, is suspect at best.

The Temple ceremony comes from Joseph. Why do you attend...why do yo want to attend, a religious ceremony descended from a liar and con man (not to mention lecher and pedophile?)

Do you enjoy the pretense and the pose Harmony? How long are you going to carry on with it, allowing the members of your Ward to think you are a faithful, valiant, committed Latter Day Saint? You have them all outfoxed Harmony. Fun, isn't it?

[_Fortigurn]

jgh

Ooops!

[_Coggins7]

Well, Dick's a biologist, with a limited knowledge of psychology, so he has to pull back sometimes and let the experts in that field take over.