False Prophet=Joseph Smith=Brigham Young

[_grindael]

I will, thanks. Though if your last post was not aimed at me, you should probably say so.

EA: Our posts overlapped. That was directed as Daniel. My apologies

[_grindael]

Can someone remind me how identifying supposed false prophecies by biblical prophets helps to support Joseph Smith as a prophet? Wouldn't this just mean both Joseph Smith and the biblical prophet were false prophets?

Joseph Smith set some pretty strict criteria for identifying a true prophet.

sr

Exactly.

[Guest]

All you want is to score a rhetorical point or two?

This is exactly what you are trying to do with your "Christ is a liar" strawman. And I take umbrage at your constant condescension of those you deem non-scholars or non-professionals. When it comes to Mormonism, (this is Mormon Discussions after all), your scholarly achievements have not served you well. Case in point, this exchange I had with you back in 2011 about Mormonism and the Trinity:

Daniel O. Mcclellan says:

June 30, 2011 at 7:27 pm

I have to take issue with this post, grindael. You point to 1 Ne 11:18, 21; 13:40 as indicative of an early Trinitarian view that would only later by altered by Joseph Smith, but you’ve overlooked some important historical data. There were two stages of composition prior to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, namely the original manuscript and the printer’s manuscript. In the printer’s manuscript 1 Ne 11:18 and 13:40 have “the son of” inserted into the text (1 Ne 11:18 also reincorporates “whom” from the printer’s manuscript). The changes are actually not “later alterations,” as you assert, but earlier alterations. They were, for whatever reason, not included in the 1830 edition, but incorporated later. Oliver Cowdery cited 1 Ne 11:18 in an 1835 newspaper article where he responded to Alexander Campbell’s assertion that 1 Ne 11:18 used “true Roman phraseology.” He argued against that understanding. Perhaps that confusion is the reason the reading from the printer’s manuscript was reincorporated only two years later.

Your criticism here falls flat. Joseph Smith did not alter anything to try to bring it around to a new understanding. If he had, he missed some verses that state that Jesus is the Eternal Father (such as Mos 16:15; Alma 11:38-39). Of course, other verses explicitly state that God the Father is the Eternal Father (Mor 4:3; 5:2; 10:4). Jesus was distinguished from God the Father throughout the Book of Mormon, though, but can be called the Father for several reasons that are spelled out therein:

Mos 5:7: “And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.”

Ether 3:14: “Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.”

Ether 4:7: “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are.”

In 3 Nephi Jesus claims divine investiture of authority, reporting his Father’s words, ending several verses with “saith the Father.” This is similar to the way angels and other messengers delivered messages in the Old Testament (cf. Exod 23:21).

In addition to being more thorough in your reading of the Book of Mormon, you need to look a bit wider to get a better sense of Smith’s view of the Godhead. For instance, in the Book of Moses, composed in 1830, we read:

Mos 2:26: “And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.”

This is little different from the third person account of the Book of Abraham, which just says the following:

“And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness.”

The Book of Moses also clarifies that God is referring to his own corporeal image:

Mos 6:8-9: “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; in the image of his own body, male and female, created he them.”

John Whitmer also wrote in 1831 that Smith had had a vision in which he saw God and Jesus as distinct personages. A text from Smith’s mother from 1830 shows that by that time it was already being taught that God had a physical body:

“[T]he different denominations are very much opposed to us. . . . The Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle.”

Sometime in the winter of 1832-1833 Zebedee Coltrin recorded that he had a vision and Joseph Smith told him (and others with them):

“Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.”

grindael says:

June 30, 2011 at 9:54 pm

Daniel said: They were, for whatever reason, not included in the 1830 edition, but incorporated later.

That would be a ‘later alteration’ would it not? Or am I missing something. Your argument is non-sequitor.

Really you are saying that the changes Smith made to the 1837 version of the Book of Mormon make a difference? If you had bothered to read thoroughly the Fair article you quoted you would have read:

(The strikeouts and in the printer’s manuscript are in Joseph’s hand, and were added by him during the preparation of the 1837 edition.)

By 1837 Smith’s God Doctrine had radically changed, hence the need to “clarify” the doctrine in the Book of Mormon.

Daniel said: John Whitmer also wrote in 1831 that Smith had had a vision in which he saw God and Jesus as distinct personages.

Actually, this is not correct. What Whitmer wrote was,

“And the spirit fell upon Lyman [Wight], and he prophesied, concerning the coming of Christ, he said that there were some in the congregation that should live until the Savior should descend from heaven, with a shout, with all the holy angels with him. He said the coming of the Savior should be, like; the sun rising in the east, and will cover the whole earth, so with the coming of the Son of man be, yea, he will appear in his brightness and consume all before him. And the hills will be laid low, and the valleys be exalted; and the crooked be made straight; and the rough smooth. And some of my brethren shall suffer martyrdom, for the sake of the religion of Jesus Christ, and seal the testimony of Jesus with their blood.

He saw the heavens opened, and the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the Father. Making intercession for his brethren, the Saints. He said that God would work a work in these last days that tongue cannot express, and the mind is not capable to conceive. The glory of the Lord shone around.”

This does not prove separate personages by any means. It is an expression of power, ‘sitting on the right hand of’ which I’m sure you know very well. And even Fair gets this wrong, it’s not Smith, but Lyman Wight who sees the vision. If you are referring to the Levi Hancock account of Smith seeing God, that is a different matter. Here it is:

“Joseph Smith then stepped out on the floor and said, “I now see God, and Jesus Christ at his right hand, let them kill me, I should not feel death as I am now.”

Joseph put his hands on Harvey Whitlock and ordained him to the high priesthood. He turned as black as Lyman was white. His fingers were set like claws. He went around the room and showed his hands and tried to speak; his eyes were in the shape of oval O’s. Hyrum Smith said, “Joseph, that is not of God.” Joseph said, “Do not speak against this.” “I will not believe,” said Hyrum, “unless you inquire of God and he owns it.” Joseph bowed his head, and in a short time got up and commanded Satan to leave Harvey, laying his hands upon his head at the same time. At that very instant an old man said to weigh two hundred and fourteen pounds sitting in the window turned a complete summersault in the house and came his back across a bench and lay helpless. Joseph told Lyman to cast Satan out. He did. The man’s name was Leanon [Leman] Coply [Copley], formally a Quaker [Shaker]. The evil spirit left him and as quick lightning Harvey Green fell bound and screamed like a panther. Satan was cast out of him. But immediately entered someone else. This continued all day and the greater part of the night. But to return to the meeting, Joseph said, “Now if you elders have sinned it will do you no good to preach if you have not repented. Heamon [Heman] Bassett you sit still the Devil wants to sift you. . .” Then he ordained Jacob Scott and some others to the High Priesthood. He came to Zebidee [Zebedee] Coltrin and myself and told us that we had another calling as high as any man in the house. I was glad for that for I was so scared I would not stir without his liberty for all the world. I knew the things I had seen was not made.” (Levi Han[filtered profanity or slur], 1803-1882 Autobiography (1803-1836) Typescript, HBLL THE LIFE OF LEVI HAN[filtered profanity or slur]
(Copied from his own journal by Clara E. H. Lloyd, great-grand daughter.)

He certainly does NOT call God a ‘personage’ here, but simply recites what is claimed by Stephen in the book of Acts. And if this is a testament to God being a personage of ‘flesh and bones’ then why is this very phrase repeated in the Lectures on Faith, which call God the Father a Spirit?:

“And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father-possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all–the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father–possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father--a Mediator for man–being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. (Lecture V:2)

And, if that is not clear enough:

“There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power overall things–by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space–They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;–he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh.”(V:2)

And the questions and answers:

Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
Q. Two: the Father and the Son. (5:1.)
Q. What is the Father?
A. He is a personage of glory and of power. (5:2.)
Q. What is the Son?
A. First, he is a personage of tabernacle. (5:2.)
Q. Why was he called the Son?
A. Because of the flesh.
Q. Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?
A. They do.
Q. What is this mind?
A. The Holy Spirit.

Daniel wrote: A text from Smith’s mother from 1830 shows that by that time it was already being taught that God had a physical body:

“[T]he different denominations are very much opposed to us. . . . The Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle.”

As Dan Vogel so aptly puts it:

In context this statement does not mean that in 1830 Mormons were teaching that the Father has a body like the Son’s—this concept was not introduced into Mormonism until much later. Nor does it necessarily imply that Lucy was reading a later Mormon concept into an earlier time. She was more likely contrasting the Book of Mormon’s teaching that God the Father had become flesh with the orthodox creeds which distinguished between the persons of the Son and Father and described the Father as spirit essence. According to Lucy Smith, the Methodists thus objected to the Book of Mormon’s modalistic view of God because it made the Father into a corporeal being.

Some of the revelations which Joseph Smith dictated between 1829 and 1831 similarly blur the distinction between the Father and the Son (D&C 11:2, 10, 28; 29:1, 42, 46; 49:5, 28). Also in the early 1830s Smith revised the Bible, changing a number of passages to more explicitly identify the Son with the Father. For example, he changed Luke 10:22, in which Jesus declares that “no man [p.25]knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.” In the revised version Jesus says that “no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.”

Daniel wrote: Sometime in the winter of 1832-1833 Zebedee Coltrin recorded that he had a vision and Joseph Smith told him (and others with them):

“Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.”

That remark was made by Zebedee Coutrin in 1883 at the School of the Prophets, long after the event. This is the same guy that couldn’t remember (or rather lied) that he ordained Elijah Abel a Seventy.

Daniel wrote: Oliver Cowdery cited 1 Ne 11:18 in an 1835 newspaper article where he responded to Alexander Campbell’s assertion that 1 Ne 11:18 used “true Roman phraseology.” He argued against that understanding. Perhaps that confusion is the reason the reading from the printer’s manuscript was reincorporated only two years later.

Perhaps, but it is speculation, the Lectures on Faith confirm that the doctrine was taught, as reflected in 1 Nephi. Smith changed his theology by 1837, and made corrections in the Book of Mormon to reflect this. As Bruce Satterfield writes,

1837 Kirtland Edition

The Book of Mormon played a major role in the missionary efforts of the early church. As proselyting increased, another printing of the Book of Mormon was needed. In 1837, while the Church was headquartered in Kirtland, Ohio, Joseph Smith began the process of reprinting the Book of Mormon. In preparation for this edition, Joseph Smith compared the 1830 edition to the printer’s manuscript and corrected hundreds of typographical, grammatical, and syntactical errors found in the first edition. He also emended the text in nearly 100 cases. No subsequent revision of the text was more extensive than produced in this edition. Joseph Smith also had his named changed from Author and Proprietor to Translator to lessen confusion about who authored the book. There were 3,000-5,000 copies printed. http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/PDF/BM ... istory.pdf

It could be as simple as they ran out of copies, and knew they would need a new printing. They corrected typographical errors in the original, and Smith got a chance to correct his doctrinal blunders from the first edition, which reflect that the doctrine itself was changed, for the original printer’s manuscript reads the same as the first edition.

Daniel said: “In addition to being more thorough in your reading of the Book of Mormon, you need to look a bit wider to get a better sense of Smith’s view of the Godhead.”

In the Book of Moses, it speaks of one God, and in the Book of Abraham it speaks of many. What is your point? You never addressed the Lectures on Faith, or why Smith changed Luke in the inspired version, or many of the other points made. All the things you bring up are unconvincing. _johnny

Daniel O. Mcclellan says:

July 1, 2011 at 10:52 am

Well, obviously I didn’t take near enough time to look into the issue, and you rightly called me on it. Well played.

http://blog.mrm.org/2011/06/what-happen ... Mormonism/

So how does your being "a professional" debater? have anything to do with expertise on a given subject?

[_The Erotic Apologist]

I'm well aware that not all Mormons believe the same things. However, the official site of the Church teaches doctrine that is approved by the First Presidency of the Church. In the case of the prophecy of Tyre, and Jesus prophecies in Matthew 24 (which we are talking about) I stand by my words. If individuals don't believe it, that is fine. But that has nothing to do with what the Church teaches, which is that the prophecy of Tyre was fulfilled.

I'm not aware that the First Presidency has issued a recent statement specifically regarding Tyre. In light of that, would you please desist from declaring what I am and am not obligated to believe? Thank you. In return, I'll promise not to unilaterally declare what you as a Christian are and are not obligated to believe.

Daniel went after someone with the claim that Jesus is a liar. He offers no proof of this, but an exegesis of Matthew 24 that he somehow ascribes to "Fundamentalists", after the fact. Of course they don't believe this.

Perhaps it would help to clarify things if you provided the actual quote along with its accompanying context and any conditional statements and/or clauses. I find this is generally more effective than attempting to paraphrase, or to offer one's personal interpretation in lieu of what was actually stated.

As for viewing Mormonism from a monolithic perspective, they have set it up to be that way. Can you get up in a Sacrament Meeting and say that because Ezekiel's prophecy of Tyre failed you must be calling Jesus a liar?

I'll let you know as soon as it happens. On the other hand, I've heard people get up in fasting testimony meeting and say Brigham Young was a bigamist. I've heard people say that the Book of Mormon took place not on Earth, but on another planet in a parallel dimension. I've even heard heard people speculate on Jesus' masturbatory habits during his mortal ministry. But I'll let you know as soon as someone says the big J was liar.

You can believe whatever you like in Mormonism, but if your beliefs clash with the approved doctrine of the church, and you teach them publicly, there are consequences. Individual beliefs carry no weight in Mormonism. One must be ordained and set apart as a "prophet, seer, and revelator" for doctrinal statements to carry weight.

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Go to the Neal A Maxwell Institute website and you'll see what I mean.

I'd like to know if you've ever been a Mormon, though I would find it difficult to believe you've ever had anything other than an adversarial relationship with Mormonism. Hence your rigid, monolithic, and ultimately erroneous perspective on the subject.

Daniel is slandering an entire group of Christians, saying that because of the way they interpret Biblical prophecy they must logically be calling Christ a liar, yet his own faith teaches as official doctrine that those prophecies were literally fulfilled, and so using his argument, Mormonism does the same thing.

I don't see how positing a logical syllogism would make one guilty of slander on a Biblical scale. And at any rate you are again asserting that just because the Sunday school manual teaches X, one is therefore obligated to believe X. This would naturally also include the publishers of said Sunday school manual. Haven't we already covered this?

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Can someone remind me how identifying supposed false prophecies by biblical prophets helps to support Joseph Smith as a prophet? Wouldn't this just mean both Joseph Smith and the biblical prophet were false prophets?

Joseph Smith set some pretty strict criteria for identifying a true prophet.

sr

I suppose the reasoning behind it goes like this: If ancient prophets were capable of making mistakes, then one can assume that Joseph Smith was also capable of making mistakes.

[_grindael]

I'm well aware that not all Mormons believe the same things. However, the official site of the Church teaches doctrine that is approved by the First Presidency of the Church. In the case of the prophecy of Tyre, and Jesus prophecies in Matthew 24 (which we are talking about) I stand by my words. If individuals don't believe it, that is fine. But that has nothing to do with what the Church teaches, which is that the prophecy of Tyre was fulfilled.

I'm not aware that the First Presidency has issued a recent statement specifically regarding Tyre. In light of that, would you please desist from declaring what I am and am not obligated to believe? Thank you. In return, I'll promise not to unilaterally declare what you as a Christian are and are not obligated to believe.

Daniel went after someone with the claim that Jesus is a liar. He offers no proof of this, but an exegesis of Matthew 24 that he somehow ascribes to "Fundamentalists", after the fact. Of course they don't believe this.

Perhaps it would help to clarify things if you provided the actual quote along with its accompanying context and any conditional statements and/or clauses. I find this is generally more effective than attempting to paraphrase, or to offer one's personal interpretation in lieu of what was actually stated.

As for viewing Mormonism from a monolithic perspective, they have set it up to be that way. Can you get up in a Sacrament Meeting and say that because Ezekiel's prophecy of Tyre failed you must be calling Jesus a liar?

I'll let you know as soon as it happens. On the other hand, I've heard people get up in fasting testimony meeting and say Brigham Young was a bigamist. I've heard people say that the Book of Mormon took place not on Earth, but on another planet in a parallel dimension. I've even heard heard people speculate on Jesus' masturbatory habits during his mortal ministry. But I'll let you know as soon as someone says the big J was liar.

You can believe whatever you like in Mormonism, but if your beliefs clash with the approved doctrine of the church, and you teach them publicly, there are consequences. Individual beliefs carry no weight in Mormonism. One must be ordained and set apart as a "prophet, seer, and revelator" for doctrinal statements to carry weight.

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Go to the Neal A Maxwell Institute website and you'll see what I mean.

I'd like to know if you've ever been a Mormon, though I would find it difficult to believe you've ever had anything other than an adversarial relationship with Mormonism. Hence your rigid, monolithic, and ultimately erroneous perspective on the subject.

Daniel is slandering an entire group of Christians, saying that because of the way they interpret Biblical prophecy they must logically be calling Christ a liar, yet his own faith teaches as official doctrine that those prophecies were literally fulfilled, and so using his argument, Mormonism does the same thing.

I don't see how positing a logical syllogism would make one guilty of slander on a Biblical scale. And at any rate you are again asserting that just because the Sunday school manual teaches X, one is therefore obligated to believe X. This would naturally also include the publishers of said Sunday school manual. Haven't we already covered this already?

I never said what YOU believe, EA. Where do you get that? I use the generic term Mormons. I’m not going to stop doing that because you take objection to it. I’m quoting what the church teaches. In fact, your statement that the FP didn’t make some kind of statement on Tyre is wrong. They did, it is in the manual I quoted. It is considered church approved doctrine,

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. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a ... n-doctrine

If you don’t want to believe it, fine. I never said anyone was "obligated" to believe anything. Don't put words in my mouth. The Mormon church teaches it. When I say “What Mormons believe”, it is within that context. And I have no objection to you saying "this is what Christians believe". If I don’t believe something you label as such and ascribe to me, I will simply tell you I don’t and the reason why.

I did quote both of the statements of Daniel. Reread the thread. If you read it from the beginning it is obvious what the context is. If you can’t figure it out, that is your problem.

You said: But I'll let you know as soon as someone says the big J was liar.

Great, you do that. Be sure also to monitor each and every Stake and Ward, and let me know the reactions of all of the people in authority. Be thorough, if you are going to present me with data.

You said: I'd like to know if you've ever been a Mormon, though I would find it difficult to believe you've ever had anything other than an adversarial relationship with Mormonism. Hence your rigid, monolithic, and ultimately erroneous perspective on the subject.

I was a Mormon for 13 years and went on a mission. I went to BYU. And you can disagree with me, but a lot of ex-Mormons feel the same way. That is why they are ex-Mormons.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

First of all, you need to learn how to use the QUOTE function.

In fact, your statement that the FP didn’t make some kind of statement on Tyre is wrong. They did, it is in the manual I quoted. It is considered church approved doctrine,

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. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a ... n-doctrine

But you can't provide a specific quote? ...sigh

I did quote both of the statements of Daniel. Reread the thread. If you read it from the beginning it is obvious what the context is. If you can’t figure it out, that is your problem.

You're familiar with the CUT and PASTE functions, are you not? If not, Little Nipper can probably help you out. He's quite the expert when it comes to CUT and PASTE.

You said: But I'll let you know as soon as someone says the big J was liar.

Great, you do that. Be sure also to monitor each and every Stake and Ward, and let me know the reactions of all of the people in authority. Be thorough, if you are going to present me with data.

Yeah, I'll get right on that...

You said: I'd like to know if you've ever been a Mormon, though I would find it difficult to believe you've ever had anything other than an adversarial relationship with Mormonism. Hence your rigid, monolithic, and ultimately erroneous perspective on the subject.

I was a Mormon for 13 years and went on a mission. I went to BYU. And you can disagree with me, but a lot of ex-Mormons feel the same way. That is why they are ex-Mormons.

Well, here's your problem: You've merely exchanged the mythology of Mormonism for the mythology of contemporary Christianity.

[_grindael]

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Go to the Neal A Maxwell Institute website and you'll see what I mean.

This is hardly worth a reply but... if you had comprehended the context of what I said, you would have figured out what I meant. Why do the articles have this disclaimer at that site:

The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Because they carry no doctrinal weight.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Go to the Neal A Maxwell Institute website and you'll see what I mean.

This is hardly worth a reply but... if you had comprehended the context of what I said, you would have figured out what I meant. Why do the articles have this disclaimer at that site:

The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Because they carry no doctrinal weight.

But nothing specific regarding Tyre? Riiiiight...

[_grindael]

First of all, you need to learn how to use the QUOTE function.

In fact, your statement that the FP didn’t make some kind of statement on Tyre is wrong. They did, it is in the manual I quoted. It is considered church approved doctrine,

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. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a ... n-doctrine

But you can't provide a specific quote? ...sigh

I did quote both of the statements of Daniel. Reread the thread. If you read it from the beginning it is obvious what the context is. If you can’t figure it out, that is your problem.

You're familiar with the CUT and PASTE functions, are you not? If not, Little Nipper can probably help you out. He's quite the expert when it comes to CUT and PASTE.

You said: But I'll let you know as soon as someone says the big J was liar.

Great, you do that. Be sure also to monitor each and every Stake and Ward, and let me know the reactions of all of the people in authority. Be thorough, if you are going to present me with data.

Yeah, I'll get right on that...

You said: I'd like to know if you've ever been a Mormon, though I would find it difficult to believe you've ever had anything other than an adversarial relationship with Mormonism. Hence your rigid, monolithic, and ultimately erroneous perspective on the subject.

I was a Mormon for 13 years and went on a mission. I went to BYU. And you can disagree with me, but a lot of ex-Mormons feel the same way. That is why they are ex-Mormons.

Well, here's your problem: You've merely exchanged the mythology of Mormonism for the mythology of contemporary Christianity.

I did provide a specific quote. You refuse to believe it apparently. As for the rest of your comments...