The Exodus motif and the name Brigham Young

laska said:

Tosca, we've been over this before. It doesn't look like there is anything I can say that is going to alter your opinions. Not once that I can think of have you taken back any accusations and admitted my response resolved an issue. It is typical when debating someone that cannot go beyond their biases. If I was telling people what say Baptists believe and was throwing out stuff full of errors, which I would never do anyway, if someone showed where I was mistaken I would apologize and admit it. I am pro LDS but I am an honest debater. So Tosca, believe what you want.

Click to expand...

I am an honest debater, too. I cut to the chase and given you straight questions - which you avoid answering.

If you can't tell when Brigham Young was speaking as a prophet as he makes his discourse and sermon before the people - then how is he a prophet? It's not like as if he's simply making little mistakes - he's practically saying blasphemous things that are quite contradictory to the Scriptures, for crying out loud!

What biblical God-appointed prophet was there that is indeed - in his everyday life as a human - who'd declare beliefs about God that's contradictory to what God had been saying all along? Paul never believed in Jesus Christ until that fateful day that He'd revealed Himself to Paul - the result was the amazing transformation in Paul.


Any God-appointed prophets will logically be transformed to be
consistent with God!


After all, they're chosen to speak for God. How can you have a credible prophet who'll be speaking one thing and then declaring things that are contrary with God's? That sows confusion.

Anything that sows confusions about God CANNOT BE FROM GOD!



The things you'd do for the Baptist - as your example - does not necessarily mean that what you'd show them is right, either. If someone shows me where she thinks I'm wrong in my belief (yet, I know I'm right), of course I wouldn't admit that I'm wrong. Instead I'd try to prove that she is wrong in her assumption and that I'm right with mine.

LDS is getting a lot of challenge from Christians because from a Christian's standpoint - based on the Scriptures and basic Christian doctrine - LDS, even though they use the name of Jesus Christ in their title - Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - is not a Christian religion.
How can it be when it actually teaches beliefs that are contrary to what Jesus had taught?

The challenges from posters do not come from bias. What you see are Christians trying to defend the Christian doctrine from being sullied, and trying to prevent the confusions that mislead others.

Christians must believe that any God-appointed prophet(s) will have to be CONSISTENT with Jesus Christ!

Otherwise, the Scriptures is not reliable, and God cannot be trusted, and Jesus cannot be who He'd said He is. That means, we believe in a false God. That's simple logic.


Jesus had said:

John 16
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.

13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.

15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”


Any teachings that diminish the stature of Jesus Christ is not a Christian religion.

laska said:

We do not know if it was quoted accurately, and if it was we do not know if it was Brigham Young's opinion or if he was speaking as a prophet by the spirit. That is why faithful LDS members stick with what is canonized.

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

So when do you know when he's speaking as a prophet or not? :lol:

That's the whole point, isn't it? Not knowing.

Click to expand...

It is notable that in quoting Laska, you intentionally cut off the part you were quoting from his posting, where he answered the very question that you went on to ask.

There is an established process by which revealed truth is established as official doctrine and policy in the church; and recorded as scripture. Not every word ever spoken by a prophet is established thus; and for that matter, not every alleged record of what a prophet has supposedly said is even established as accurate.

You depend, of course, on such dubious sources as The Journal of Discourses and History of the Church to help you build a ridiculous strawman that you can attack, because you know that you cannot form a credible attack on the church and its teachings, by giving an honest account from our established doctrinal sources.

tosca1 said:

I am an honest debater, too…

Click to expand...

If you were an honest debater, then you should surely acknowledge that Laska and myself, being long-time practicing members of this religion, perhaps have a more complete and accurate knowledge and understanding of what this religion teaches, than you do. When you make a claim that we believe a certain thing, and we tell you that no, we do not believe that at all, then if you were honest, you would at least accept our accounts of what we do or do not believe as being more credible than your accounts of what we do or do not believe.

That you continue to claim greater authority to say what Mormons do or do not believe, than you grant to any actual Mormons who are participating in this discussion, rather solidly disproves any claim you can make to being in any way honest in your own participation in this discussion.

Bob Blaylock said:

It is notable that in quoting Laska, you intentionally cut off the part you were quoting from his posting, where he answered the very question that you went on to ask.

Click to expand...

Let's review them again.

Originally Posted by laska View Post

We do not know if it was quoted accurately, and if it was we do not know if it was Brigham Young's opinion or if he was speaking as a prophet by the spirit. That is why faithful LDS members stick with what is canonized.

Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post

So when do you know when he's speaking as a prophet or not?

That's the whole point, isn't it? Not knowing.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Canonization doesn't prove anything!

Here's the logic:

If you can't tell whether he's been quoted accurately, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, if you can't tell when Brigham Young is speaking as a prophet or speaking his own opinion - everything that's he's allegedly said is in doubt!


Anyway, he's being quoted by LDS! Here is an example of his quote that's on LDS - a boast he's made.


When one of them publicly proclaimed that President Young was the “man like unto Moses” spoken of in scripture, Brother Young chastized him with the wry comment:

“I think I am the great man that none of the prophets ever thought of or spoke of.”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/08/b...pirit?lang=eng

You depend, of course, on such dubious sources as The Journal of Discourses and History of the Church to help you build a ridiculous strawman that you can attack, because you know that you cannot form a credible attack on the church and its teachings, by giving an honest account from our established doctrinal sources.

Click to expand...

Those are your books! Besides, LDS is quoting from those sources!

Bob Blaylock said:

If you were an honest debater, then you should surely acknowledge that Laska and myself, being long-time practicing members of this religion, perhaps have a more complete and accurate knowledge and understanding of what this religion teaches, than you do. When you make a claim that we believe a certain thing, and we tell you that no, we do not believe that at all, then if you were honest, you would at least accept our accounts of what we do or do not believe as being more credible than your accounts of what we do or do not believe.

That you continue to claim greater authority to say what Mormons do or do not believe, than you grant to any actual Mormons who are participating in this discussion, rather solidly disproves any claim you can make to being in any way honest in your own participation in this discussion.

Click to expand...

My discussions with your doctrine is based on your explanations, and from what were taken from various sources - which by and large, are supported by LDS!

I asked you:

Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post

So, how am I supposed to take this alleged quote from Smith being used by LDS website?


“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”
(History of the Church, 4:461.)

“The most correct of any book on earth” was a bold statement to make in Joseph Smith’s day, let alone in our day of sophisticated publication. The statement is still applicable, for the Lord has never rescinded it nor cast doubt upon it.


https://www.lds.org/ensign/2004/01/the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng

Bob Blaylock said:

What are you asking about it?

Are you asking about the correctness of the quote itself (which is addressed in the article at the link you provided) or are you asking about how sure one can be that it was actually said by Joseph Smith?

If the former, then I suggest you just read the article, as it addresses that question much better than I can.

As to the latter, I really don't know. I do know that it is a quote that is often referenced. I don't know if there are any other reliable sources to authenticate it as having been said by Joseph Smith. Mr. Nyman apparently assumed the quote to be authentic, when he wrote the article that was published in one of our magazines in 1984, and which is reproduced at the link that you gave. I don't know that he's available that we can ask him how sure he was of the authenticity of that quote, or what other sources he may have looked to to verify it. In fact, taking a look at a a Wikipedia article that appears to be about him, it appears that he passed away a few years ago. The article does mention that he served on the Correlation and Translation Committee, an effort that I am somewhat aware of having occurred sometime in the 1980s or 1990s, specifically to address the issues of material from dubious sources appearing in official church publications; and the establishment of standards to insure that materials published by the church, and put forth as authoritative statements of church doctrine, policy, and practice, were not dependent on substandard sources.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Just read your reply to my question. You advised me to read the article - the president James Faust quoted from the dubious source, History of the Church!

So I'm on the dot when I said, that's the whole point, isn't it? NOT KNOWING!