Fundamental Mormon Claims

[_Markk]

Your spinning Dan, and losing your composer..slow down and take a breath.

Back to the subject, what LDS books today dig into core doctrines like the apostles and teachers did in the past.

Are you saying that the two Smiths and BM spoke and wrote falsely due to family ties? If I have my history correct the two smiths were related to Joseph Smith? whats your point? Because they, and BM were family they had less knowledge of the gospel and really should not have been apostles? Because it was a "family industry" as you put it, it is somehow less truth?

In all honesty all I'm saying is that The LDS church is pretty much silent nowadays on core church doctrines. An example is how God became a God. There was a time when Joseph Smith, and BY taught these doctrines from the pulpit, and prophets and apostles expounded on these teachings and the church freely published these commentaries and teachings as doctrine to the saints...why are you afraid to admit this, are you embarrassed of past teachings? Gospel Through The Ages was a priesthood manual and a recommended missionary companion for years, with years of printings. Have you read it yet, last time I asked you said your in-laws gave you a copy but you had not read it yet. The Bottom line is the church taught these doctrines at one time, now they don't...why?

Do you believe that this priesthood manual contains false teachings?

take care

[_Fence Sitter]

Fence sitter wrote: "Dan told me what we do is history and there is really no place for a paid clergy in the Church. We have never had a paid clergy"
******************************************

lds-inc has had PAID clergy for quite some time. Even Mormon.com says they have it. Why keep trying to pass off the lie that there is no paid clergy?

I need to make something clear here. I was paraphrasing Dan (badly I might add) about a paid clergy in a response to a question I asked him regarding theologins in the Church leadership. You can see exactly what he said in the SMPT thread here in the celestial forum.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your spinning Dan,

What, exactly, am I "spinning"?

and losing your composer

What in the world? You're talking about composers now? (Was it my reference to Beethoven in the post above that got you thinking along those lines?)

slow down and take a breath.

As usual, what are you talking about?

Back to the subject, what LDS books today dig into core doctrines like the apostles and teachers did in the past.

I would say that just about any book by Richard G. Scott or Henry Eyring or Dieter Uchtdorf or Robert D. Hales digs into core doctrines at least as deeply as the books by Rudger Clawson, Anthony Ivins, Charles W. Nibley, and Alonzo A. Hinckley used to dig into core doctrines.

Are you saying that the two Smiths and BM spoke and wrote falsely due to family ties?

No. I said nothing even remotely like that.

If I have my history correct the two smiths were related to Joseph Smith?

Yes, they were?

whats your point?

I doubt that I can make it any more clearly than I already have.

Because they, and BM were family they had less knowledge of the gospel and really should not have been apostles? Because it was a "family industry" as you put it, it is somehow less truth?

Where on earth do you come up with this stuff?

In all honesty all I'm saying is that The LDS church is pretty much silent nowadays on core church doctrines.

The Church and its leaders speak about its core doctrines all the time.

An example is how God became a God. There was a time when Joseph Smith, and BY taught these doctrines from the pulpit, and prophets and apostles expounded on these teachings and the church freely published these commentaries and teachings as doctrine to the saints...why are you afraid to admit this, are you embarrassed of past teachings?

Not even slightly. You seem to be missing the point of what I've said pretty completely.

Gospel Through The Ages was a priesthood manual and a recommended missionary companion for years, with years of printings. Have you read it yet, last time I asked you said your in-laws gave you a copy but you had not read it yet.

I take that back. You're not just missing the point of what I've written. You're not even reading what I've written.

The last time you asked, which was in this thread, I said, in this thread, that I had read it.

The Bottom line is the church taught these doctrines at one time, now they don't...why?

Because they're not core doctrines.

Do you believe that this priesthood manual contains false teachings?

Not necessarily.

But core and true aren't synonyms.

Something can be a true doctrine without being a core doctrine. And something can be speculative without necessarily being false.

[_Markk]

Code: Select all

What in the world? You're talking about composers now? (Was it my reference to Beethoven in the post above that got you thinking along those lines?)

tooshey...! LOL... point taken. But I think you got what I was "trying" to say. I just didn't want you to bust out another "K" on my name.

What, exactly, am I "spinning"?

My questions Dan? Cutting posts up in snippets, and switching and baiting the context. It is you MO, and your good at it, and I understand your need to do so. It is a necessary tactic for MOST of ‘you guys’, to avoid a direct conversation.


Back to my original point…The GA's of the past that were the context of my question, not the GA's you are inserting into the post.

My point has been in two parts; 1. Current GA's do not define LDS doctrine as Joseph Smith, BY, or OP, did either in print or from the pulpit. Or books and teaching manuals, by the past GA’s that I referenced, that taught and defined core LDS thought. 2. “You Guys", the four or five hundred as you put it, do not get into these past doctrines. A common excuse is, ‘I wouldn’t do it here’…that’s a cop out, it is either truth or not. Why would someone be afraid to expound on what they believe?

I believe this is because LDS theology, by appearance, is evolving more or less into a more main stream type of religion. Among reasons for this are political correctness, embarrassments, and avoiding clear contradictions by different past authorities.

LDS core thought is such a mess and maze that it is a losing battle for ‘anyone’ to defend it without digging themselves into a hole.

Right or wrong, this is the context of my original point Dan.

The Church and its leaders speak about its core doctrines all the time.

Speak or write? Where can I fine these teachings? Just give the single most current complete book, written by the GA, on LDS core theology and I’ll check it out…fair?

Because they're not core doctrines.

With all respect ‘says who’? If the forward of the teaching manual, written and approved by the GA, published by the church says they are?…again with all respect, who are you to say that they are not? When Joseph Smith says from the pulpit that “it is by revelation” that I teach this doctrine, who are you to deny it? The language is very clear that these men taught it as doctrine and truth. My father recently passed away believing they were essential doctrines, if they are not shouldn’t at least the current leadership clear this up?

Again this is a mess and why these core doctrines are not expounded as they once were.

Take care
MG

[_Daniel Peterson]

My questions Dan? Cutting posts up in snippets, and switching and baiting the context. It is you MO, and your good at it, and I understand your need to do so. It is a necessary tactic for MOST of ‘you guys’, to avoid a direct conversation.

I've been conversing with you as directly as I'm capable of doing.

I don't think you've been grasping what I've been saying.

Back to my original point…The GA's of the past that were the context of my question, not the GA's you are inserting into the post.

You've got Joseph Fielding Smith, who also put together a book of his late father's materials, and you've got his son-in-law, Bruce McConkie.

As I've shown, the vast majority of members of the First Presidency and the Twelve, in the past as now, have not written or published much on the doctrines that you want to say are at the core of our faith.

My point has been in two parts; 1. Current GA's do not define LDS doctrine as Joseph Smith, BY, or OP, did either in print or from the pulpit. Or books and teaching manuals, by the past GA’s that I referenced, that taught and defined core LDS thought. 2. “You Guys", the four or five hundred as you put it, do not get into these past doctrines.

I've written and published about several of them, as have others. You just don't read what I write.

A common excuse is, ‘I wouldn’t do it here’…that’s a cop out, it is either truth or not. Why would someone be afraid to expound on what they believe?

Insult me all you like. I'm still going to decide where and what I will discuss on Internet message boards. If I have no inclination to theologize about the things I find most sacred for the entertainment of a hostile crowd here, that will continue to be my decision, not yours.

I believe this is because LDS theology, by appearance, is evolving more or less into a more main stream type of religion. Among reasons for this are political correctness, embarrassments, and avoiding clear contradictions by different past authorities.

You can believe whatever you want.

I doubt that any evangelical out there, hearing what I believe, would be likely, any time soon, to brand it mainstream Protestantism.

LDS core thought is such a mess and maze that it is a losing battle for ‘anyone’ to defend it without digging themselves into a hole.

And I think that's nonsense.

Right or wrong, this is the context of my original point Dan.

Umm, I'll choose "wrong" for fifty?

The Church and its leaders speak about its core doctrines all the time.

Speak or write? Where can I fine these teachings?

You can fine them in general conference, for one place.

Those are our core doctrines.

Not the kind you want to assign to us. Not the specific location of Kolob, not the details of the early mortal life of God the Father, not the precise date of the creation of Adam, not the explanation of dinosaur bones.

Just give the single most current complete book, written by the GA, on LDS core theology and I’ll check it out…fair?

It's not the most recent, but I can see it from my writing desk: Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant (2006).

I can already sense your objection: You would prefer to portray us as having the premortal identity of Adam at the core of our doctrines rather than the divine atonement and resurrection of Christ.

Tough luck.

Because they're not core doctrines.

With all respect ‘says who’?

Says an active and communicant member of the Church in good standing, an ordained bishop, a professor at the Church's university, etc.

It's possible that I'm completely wrong about what the Church's core doctrines are, but it seems rather unlikely.

And who is it that seeks to announce, on our behalf and over our objections, what our core doctrines are? An alienated ex-Mormon with an axe to grind.

If the forward of the teaching manual, written and approved by the GA, published by the church says they are?…

If the Church has set forth its core doctrines in the form of a neat list in a lesson manual, I guess I've missed that. Which is curious, since I was on the committee that writes the Church's lesson manuals for nearly ten years.

again with all respect, who are you to say that they are not?

See above.

When Joseph Smith says from the pulpit that “it is by revelation” that I teach this doctrine, who are you to deny it?

What have I denied?

To say that something isn't a core doctrine isn't, as I've said above -- do you actually read what I write? -- to say that it's not true. Likewise, to say that something is true doesn't make it necessarily a core doctrine. (Brigham Young had no middle name. That's true. But it isn't a core Mormon doctrine.)

The language is very clear that these men taught it as doctrine and truth.

To say that something isn't a core doctrine isn't, as I've said above -- do you actually read what I write? -- to say that it's not true. Likewise, to say that something is true doesn't make it necessarily a core doctrine.

My father recently passed away believing they were essential doctrines, if they are not shouldn’t at least the current leadership clear this up?

Somehow, I'm not altogether sure that, if I had had a chance to speak with your father, he would end up backing your position.

You don't do a very good job of speaking for me, so I'm not much inclined to trust you when you claim to speak for others.

Again this is a mess and why these core doctrines are not expounded as they once were.

As I've said several times in this thread -- do you read what I write? -- I've encountered few if any believing Latter-day Saints who seem to have the problem with this issue that a certain type of critics routinely claim to experience.

Puzzling, that.

I have to do some other things now. No more time to play with you. I've got a plane to catch.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Is doctrine supposed to be presented as doctrine and voted on by common consent?

[_Markk]

Gospel Through The Ages was not written by a Smith, and it was a priesthood teaching manual for years recommended for missionaries. It deals with core LDS doctrines and was written and approved by the GA for use as a teaching manual to the saints.

You've got Joseph Fielding Smith, who also put together a book of his late father's materials, and you've got his son-in-law, Bruce McConkie.

LOL..no Dan..you've got them, I am no longer LDS. Again, as LDS prophets and apostles, are they less authoritative and true? That would be like me saying "all you've got" is James, and I have Paul... amazing...this is LDS logic at it's best.

As I've shown, the vast majority of members of the First Presidency and the Twelve, in the past as now, have not written or published much on the doctrines that you want to say are at the core of our faith.

And...? So what does that make what was written about as thought as truth any less truth and relieve it somehow from being discussed? John said he could've wrote more of what Jesus taught, does that make what was written any the less relevant?

More later
Mark

[_Daniel Peterson]

Gospel Through The Ages was not written by a Smith, and it was a priesthood teaching manual for years recommended for missionaries. It deals with core LDS doctrines and was written and approved by the GA for use as a teaching manual to the saints.

Hugh Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon was not written by a Smith, and it too was a priesthood teaching manual for years. Moreover, it remains in print (unlike The Gospel through the Ages, which has been out of print for decades), and has gone through at least two editions. It was written and approved by the General Authorities for use as a teaching manual to the saints, but nobody has ever claimed that it was a statement of core Church doctrines.

You've got Joseph Fielding Smith, who also put together a book of his late father's materials, and you've got his son-in-law, Bruce McConkie.

LOL..no Dan..you've got them, I am no longer LDS.

I'm hoping that that was a witticism.

In case it wasn't: The point, of course, is that, on your side, allegedly supporting your position, you have the examples of two or three closely related General Authorities. Against you, supporting my position, I have scores and scores of them, both past and present.

Again, as LDS prophets and apostles, are they less authoritative and true?

You plainly aren't following the argument.

That would be like me saying "all you've got" is James, and I have Paul...

Sigh.

amazing...this is LDS logic at it's best.

Since, thus far, you've given me no reason to believe that you've even understood my argument, it's a bit funny to see you condescendingly dismissing its logic.

As I've shown, the vast majority of members of the First Presidency and the Twelve, in the past as now, have not written or published much on the doctrines that you want to say are at the core of our faith.

And...? So what does that make what was written about as thought as truth any less truth

I've said nothing about which doctrines are true and which aren't. That's not the topic of discussion.

and relieve it somehow from being discussed?

???

John said he could've wrote more of what Jesus taught, does that make what was written any the less relevant?

No.

But that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.

More later

I'm leavin' on a jet plane. Don't know when I'll be back again.

Oh man. I'm glad to go.

[_Markk]

Hugh Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon was not written by a Smith, and it too was a priesthood teaching manual for years. Moreover, it remains in print (unlike The Gospel through the Ages, which has been out of print for decades), and has gone through at least two editions. It was written and approved by the General Authorities for use as a teaching manual to the saints, but nobody has ever claimed that it was a statement of core Church doctrines.

These are two different types of books Dan, one is more or less a commentary for the Book of Mormon, while the other, GTTA, defines LDS Doctrine in contrast with the religions of the world. You’re comparing apples to oranges. Does the church allow false doctrine and teachings to be taught in the church, if so give me some examples?

Here is quote from Mormon wiki that is a fair statement:

The Gospel Through the Ages, by Milton R. Hunter was published in 1945 by Stevens and Walls, INC of Salt Lake City, UT. It is an official statement of Mormon Doctrine. The first paragraph of the preface reads:

"This book is designed primarily for a course of study in the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums of the Church. It is to be used by all high priests', seventies', and elders' classes in their weekly meetings, beginning January 1, 1946. A second possible use of the book is for missionaries. The volume has been written and published under the direction of the General Authorities."

George F. Richards, who was at that time the President of the Council of the Twelve, writes on page v that "almost every gospel truth is there touched upon in a somewhat new but sound manner."

Do you actually deny that the LDS doctrine of eternal progression is a core LDS doctrine?

[_Markk]

In case it wasn't: The point, of course, is that, on your side, allegedly supporting your position, you have the examples of two or three closely related General Authorities. Against you, supporting my position, I have scores and scores of them, both past and present.

Whats does being related have to do with anything Dan, that is a straw-man argument. GTTA has the approval of Benson, Widtsoe, JFS, and Callis, and they actually helped with the process with their "perusal of the manuscript"...(preface quote). These men are (don't know much about Callis?) heavy weights of the LDS faith Dan.

And as far as books like Doctrines of Salvation, there were 14 other apostles that certainly could have cleared up his writings if they were irrelevant.

You plainly aren't following the argument.

LoL, your correct here in that it really isn't and argument, it is a diversion if anything.

I've said nothing about which doctrines are true and which aren't. That's not the topic of discussion.

It is certainly part of my argument, does the LDS church teach truth or not Dan? If they do then GTTA is true and this truth deals with core LDS doctrines like eternal progression..e.g. How did God become a God. Whether you want to admit it or not the LDS church has taught, as essential doctrine, that God became God by being an obedient man who followed all commandments to perfection. And that man can become equal with him in divine nature and have all that he has.

But that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Sure it does, you said you have more GA's for your side of an argument and that I had only 3 relatives. My point is that truth is not by numbers...period.