Spotlight on Mormon beliefs. (LDS)

[ludin]

Coincidentally (?)......in my search, I've stumbled on quotes made by Brigham Young about Joseph Smith - which practically imply that Joseph Smith has more authority than Jesus.

He won a glorious victory over Satan! :shock: As far as we know, Christ had won over Satan at the Crucifixion.

So, LDS has taken that credit from Jesus....and given it to Joseph Smith.


No one can enter Heaven without the consent of Joseph Smith! He reigns as a supreme being!


From Brigham Young:


Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them - something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them -

namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.

From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things,
every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are - I with you and you with me.
I cannot go there without his consent.
He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation - the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit-world. He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven.
Many will exclaim - "Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!" But it is true.

Journal of Discourses 7:289 (Oct 9, 1859)

this is why i say any text or teaching that attempts to steal glory from God and from Christ or the Holy Spirit and set themselves up in their place should be viewed with skepticism.
This right here proves that there is many issues and a huge discrepancy between mormonism and the bible.

I answer to Christ and Christ alone. It is by His sacrifice not joseph smith that i am saved.

 

[ludin]

Like nearly other such posting, I very much suspect that you've just been blindly copying material from anti-LDS sites, without really reading it, without understanding it, without checking any of the claimed sources to see if they exist, how credible they are, or whether they are being quoted accurately.

for some reason this gets brought up by every mormon. so i am going to call this out and put an end to it.

correcting something that the book of mormon or joseph smith said as incorrect is not being anti-mormon. it is showing that there is discrepancy.
that discrepancy has to be compared to something. that something is the cannon that has been passed down by the councils. those councils certified the books of the bible has true.

This was to establish a baseline to stop the corruption of Christianity that was going on at the time. there were hundreds of gnostic and other documentations and teachings going around that were not correct.

because something corrects something in the book of mormon which they have found 1000's of errors in doesn't make it anti-mormon as it does shows inconsistantcies in the book.

 

[tosca1]

You should know better than to quote anti-Mormon sites. Joseph Smith's prophecy record is amazing, and what you quote is just a hack job by dishonest people. I don't debate anti-Mormons. I'll leave you a link which you likely will ignore and no way you will give JS any credit no matter the evidence for any prophecy, because you are an anti-Mormon. You are biased. You are not a honest debater. You are losing the battle and don't even know it. I won't look into this thread again. Post a bunch of bs if you want. There certainly is no shortage of that on the net. You should take the beam out of your own eye and analyze your own religion and ministers. I'll take the LDS ANY day.

What is amazing about the Missouri prophecies is that the results were contrary to what he prophesied!

Furthermore, not only did his prophesies not come true - but the Mormons were the ones who ended up with the brunt!

Just look at these fulfillments!

FULFILLMENT: Mormons were driven out of Independence and from all of their settlements in Missouri in 1839. The temple lot is not owned by the Mormon church. No one living in the generation when the prophecy was made is still alive.

FULFILLMENT: The Mormons lost all their lands in Missouri; they did seek legal redress but were unsuccessful; their enemies were not destroyed; their wrongs were not avenged; the Mormons were driven out of Missouri.

FULFILLMENT: Zion's Camp was organized but utterly failed and it disbanded in July. Cholera decimated them and the campaign did not restore the saints to their homes.


CHOLERA DECIMATED THEM to boot!




Cholera and Its Impact on Nineteenth-Century Mormon Migration
By: Patricia Rushton

My work on the impact of cholera on Mormon migration was begun as an assignment in a Church history class on Mormon migration taught by Dr. Fred Woods. I became interested in the topic because it became apparent that many members of the Church in the process of coming to the Great Basin died of cholera. Even more apparent was the fact that many of those who died were children.

there are 136 references to cholera in the personal accounts found in the Mormon Immigration Index, probably less than a quarter of these describe separate incidents, and only a few state actual numbers of deaths. In one account, for example, John Martin wrote that cholera caused the death of two-fifths of all Saints traveling upriver from New Orleans to St. Louis in 1849. He found work burying the dead and noted that often they buried twenty-four persons a day. General voyage notes from the September 1849 voyage of the Berlin noted that forty-nine persons aboard ship died from cholera, twenty-six to twenty-eight of whom were Latter-day Saints.33
Several factors may explain the incomplete mortality records among Latter-day Saints in post-Nauvoo migrant communities. First, no established hospitals or clinics maintained records of diseases or deaths. Second, many Saints buried loved ones privately without notifying their leaders. Third, very poor families could not afford the burial fees or the cost of a coffin and so did not report deaths. Fourth, the dead were sometimes buried between or on top of existing grave sites or at any site convenient to the persons digging the grave.
Finally, there may have been hesitancy on the part of Church leadership to admit that disease and death were a constant presence for LDS migrant companies lest Saints be deterred from gathering.34 Therefore, most of the comments about the numbers of deaths from cholera in the Mormon Immigration Index employ the use of such terms as "many," "some," "a few," or "an unusual number."

Cholera struck people at the ports and outfitting stations used by LDS immigrants in their travels from the East Coast to the Great Basin. For example, more than two thousand European Mormon converts spent two months at Mormon Grove, Kansas, in 1855,56 chosen for "its desirable location on a bend of the Missouri River farther west than any other outfitting point, fine grazing grounds, abundant good water, and a healthy situation."-"" Yet in 1855, cholera attacked Mormon Grove:

[I][Cholera] afflicted the Mormon emigrants—not only at Mormon Grove but also at various other places along their journey west. Some even died along the four and a half-mile stretch between Atchison and Mormon Grove. One local observer wrote, "I saw several of the Mormons die of the cholera in their wagon beds before they got started for the Grove." Cholera decimated the Mormon immigrants in 1855. It was said, "n that season, as many as sixteen persons were buried in one grave at this same Mormon Grove.


https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/.../7002/6651




What comes to mind is a visual of a BOOMERANG! He threw his prophesies aimed at his opponents,
but instead, what came back hit his congregation with full force!


The migration (if I'm not mistaken) was supposed to be for the "gathering."

Finally, there may have been hesitancy on the part of Church leadership to admit that disease and death were a constant presence for LDS migrant companies lest Saints be deterred from gathering

To me, that is a sign that clearly, GOD WAS NOT WITH HIM.

Furthermore, to me, it is a sign that God was exposing him (to his own congregation) as a false prophet!

 

[ludin]

Tosca


Mormons are not Christians we are the real Christians. Joseph Smith is a false prophet and he and his brother deserved to be killed by a band of us real Christians with our faces painted black. Lying about the LDS to make them look bad is OK, they are of the devil.

Umm the only real christians are the ones that accept Christ as their savior and ask for forgiveness of their sins.
Ones that follow his teachings not Joseph smiths.

 

[tosca1]

Brother Cannon remarked that people wondered how many wives and children I had. He may inform them that I shall have wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and kingdom after kingdom, and reign triumphantly.

- Brigham Young

Journal of Discourses, v. 8, pp. 178-179

 

[tosca1]

If you do not know whose right it is to give revelations, I will tell you. It is I.

- Brigham Young



"October Conference Minutes [October 6, 1844]," Times and Seasons, October 15, 1844, v. 5, no. 19, p. 683

 

[tosca1]

If I had forty wives in the United States, they did not know it, and could not substantiate it, neither did I ask any lawyer, judge, or magistrate for them. I live above the law,
and so do this people.

- Brigham Young


Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 361

 

[tosca1]

I have never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.

- Brigham Young



Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 95

 

[tosca1]

He has told you that he is an old man. Do you think that I am an old man? I could prove to this congregation that I am young; for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can any of the young men.

- Brigham Young


Journal of Discourses 5:211, September 6th, 1857

 

[tosca1]

Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father. That is why He is called the Only Begotten Son. He inherited divine powers from His Father. From His mother He inherited mortality and was subject to hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain, and death.

Don't you sound like the one being rebuked by Brigham Young?


I have heard sectarian priests undertake to tell the character of the Son of God, and they make him half of one species and half of another, and I could not avoid thinking at once of the mule, which is the most hateful creature that ever was made, I believe. You will excuse me, but I have thus thought many a time.

p 217

To Know God is Eternal Life, Etc., by Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 215-221)

 

[tosca1]

I could refer you to plenty of instances where men, have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up—conquers death, hell, and the grave.

I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.

This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.

- Brigham Young


P 220

To Know God is Eternal Life, Etc., by Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 215-221)

 

[Bob Blaylock]

To be fair, I did a good search to know what D.H.C. stands for. That acronym may be or may not be accurate....but a quote from another source speaks of the boast.



History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409

OK, so you know which source is being referenced. Do you know how History of the Church was put together? I gather the method and format used was controversial then, and generally not accepted at all today as a valid means of recording history.

A clue is that you can find quotes therein attributed to Joseph Smith about events that happened after his death.

 

[tosca1]

OK, so you know which source is being referenced. Do you know how History of the Church was put together? I gather the method and format used was controversial then, and generally not accepted at all today as a valid means of recording history.

A clue is that you can find quotes therein attributed to Joseph Smith about events that happened after his death.

I hardly know anything Bob. I'm learning as I go here....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

OK, so you know which source is being referenced. Do you know how History of the Church was put together? I gather the method and format used was controversial then, and generally not accepted at all today as a valid means of recording history.

A clue is that you can find quotes therein attributed to Joseph Smith about events that happened after his death.

I hardly know anything Bob. I'm learning as I go here....

Here's the thing about History of the Church: It was written to read as a first-person account from Joseph Smith's point of view. It was compiled and edited from many other sources, other quotations and writings; much of them from Joseph Smith, but also much from other people; all recast as if in Joseph Smith's own words.

It is useful as a general overview of the early history of the church; but if you read a quote therein, attributed to Joseph Smith, and you assume that it was actually Joseph Smith who said it or wrote it, then you do so in error.


A broader point is that one needs to be careful about which sources one believes to what extent; especially from the early parts of our history. Many of our early leaders were rather careless about distinguishing their own opinions from official doctrines and positions of the church, and much of the means used to record what anyone said were rather sloppy about verifying that what was recorded was done so accurately. In more recent years, our leaders have learned from the experiences of the past to be careful about expressing their own opinions in ways that can be misleadingly taken as statements of official doctrine or policy, and we have much better means to insure that what is recorded of our leader's speakings and writings is recorded accurately.

I'll buy, for now, that you're just acting out of ignorance, but most in the anti-Mormon movement very much know what they are doing when they lift a quote from a dubious source, and treat it as a definitive statement of LDS doctrine, policy, or practice. From such sources, they build a haystack of claimed LDS beliefs that they know to be dubious, at best, if not outright false, and present this as if it represents the true teachings and practices of the church.

From any anti-Mormon source, you'll get all manner of bizarre accounts of our beliefs and practices, which, if you ask a genuine Mormon if he believes or practices what is described, he'll tell you know, that is not what we believe or practice. I've been a member of this church all my life (more than half a century, now) and I know clearly what I have been taught, what I have practiced, and what I believe, as a Mormon. Will you believe me when I tell you what a Mormon does or does not believe, or will you believe the sources from which you've been getting all manner of bizarre nonsense that is nothing like what I believe?

 

[tosca1]

Here's the thing about History of the Church: It was written to read as a first-person account from Joseph Smith's point of view. It was compiled and edited from many other sources, other quotations and writings; much of them from Joseph Smith, but also much from other people; all recast as if in Joseph Smith's own words.

It is useful as a general overview of the early history of the church; but if you read a quote therein, attributed to Joseph Smith, and you assume that it was actually Joseph Smith who said it or wrote it, then you do so in error.

Can you specify which among the quotes I'd given were not actually said by Smith?


Furthermore, that suggests that the History Of The Church is not a reliable document about the history of LDS?
And yet, it's still being quoted apparently. So how do you know which is accurate and which is not?

 

[tosca1]

From any anti-Mormon source, you'll get all manner of bizarre accounts of our beliefs and practices, which, if you ask a genuine Mormon if he believes or practices what is described, he'll tell you know, that is not what we believe or practice. I've been a member of this church all my life (more than half a century, now) and I know clearly what I have been taught, what I have practiced, and what I believe, as a Mormon. Will you believe me when I tell you what a Mormon does or does not believe, or will you believe the sources from which you've been getting all manner of bizarre nonsense that is nothing like what I believe?

To me, it's not about the messenger. It's about the message. I sometimes go and quote from atheist sites.

It doesn't matter what source is used, as long as there is verification that the message is worth something. I may've stumbled onto an "anti-Mormon" site....but because of that allegedly anti-Mormon site, I was propelled to the LDS Journal site (from where I quoted some of Brigham Young's statements).

You see what I mean?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Can you specify which among the quotes I'd given were not actually said by Smith?


Furthermore, that suggests that the History Of The Church is not a reliable document about the history of LDS?
And yet, it's still being quoted apparently. So how do you know which is accurate and which is not?

You can't really know, except from what can be verified from other sources accepted as reliable.

As I said, History of the Church is useful as a general overview of the history of the church. Accounts of events that happened can be assumed to have come from people who witnessed or experienced those events and who have reported them more or less accurately. It's a useful document, as long as you know its limits.

The Journal of Discourses is another publication, among many others, which similarly is useful as long as you know the limits of its credibility and accuracy. It contains a lot of useful truth, mingled with a fair amount of error, and it isn't always possible to know which is which.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

To me, it's not about the messenger. It's about the message. I sometimes go and quote from atheist sites.

It doesn't matter what source is used, as long as there is verification that the message is worth something. I may've stumbled onto an "anti-Mormon" site....but because of that allegedly anti-Mormon site, I was propelled to the LDS Journal site (from where I quoted some of Brigham Young's statements).

You see what I mean?

By “the LDS Journal site”, do you mean jod.mrm.org? MRM.ORG is an anti-Mormon site. It's a site that puts forth intentional lies about Mormonism.

I'm not saying that the Journal of Discourses, as presented on that site, is not a true and accurate copy of that document, but you can certainly expect this site to have made a specific effort to pick out bizarre quoted from that document, and present them as accurate representations of LDS doctrine, knowing full well that they are not.

As I mentioned before, many of our early leaders were rather careless about distinguishing their own opinions from official doctrines and policies of the church. Brigham Young* was especially notorious for this; and the Journal of Discourses mostly covers the time when he was the leader of the church. On top of that , there were limitations to the manner in which his and other speeches were recorded in the Journal. Much of it was taken down hastily in shorthand, and much reconstructed after the fact from the writer's memory; and rarely was there any consultation between the writer and the men whose speeches were recorded to verify that what was recorded was an accurate record of what they said or what they meant.

The Journal of Discourses, as I said, is useful so long as you know its limits. In many cases, as flawed as it is, it is the only extant record of speeches that otherwise would be lost entirely. Anti-Mormons love it, because there's a lot of stuff in there attributed to Brigham Young, that has never been established as doctrine or policy in the church, but which makes for a great strawman for them to build up to try to show how bizarre a church they want their audience to think we are.


* There's an amusing anecdote about Brigham Young. I wish I could find it in more detail. I think my wife might know where to find it, but she's unavailable at the moment. It's probably somewhere in the Journal of Discourses. The story is that one morning, Brigham gave a passionate, fiery sermon on a particular topic. Later that day, a more subdued and humbled Brigham gave another sermon, which he began by saying something to the effect of “This morning, you heard what Brigham Young thinks of this matter. Now you'll hear what God thinks…” and then went on to say something very different, admitting that much of what he had said that morning was wrong. The anecdotes makes perfect sense, if you accept, as we do, that Brigham Young was a prophet of God, that God spoke to him and instructed him as to how to lead the church, and what to teach, but also understand that he was a rather arrogant and opinionated individual; and, as I said, careless about distinguishing his own opinions from the doctrine that God instructed him to teach. It's easy to imagine that that morning, he got up and gave a passionate sermon on some opinion he had formed, after which God spoke to him, corrected him, and instructed him as to what he should say in his later speech.

 

[tosca1]

By “the LDS Journal site”, do you mean jod.mrm.org? MRM.ORG is an anti-Mormon site. It's a site that puts forth intentional lies about Mormonism.

I'm not saying that the Journal of Discourses, as presented on that site, is not a true and accurate copy of that document, but you can certainly expect this site to have made a specific effort to pick out bizarre quoted from that document, and present them as accurate representations of LDS doctrine, knowing full well that they are not.

Go check it out. They didn't post quotes. They posted the entire discourse of an event like this one:

To Know God is Eternal Life—God the Father of Our Spirits and Bodies—Things Created Spiritually First—Atonement By the Shedding of Blood
A Discourse by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, February 8, 1857.
Reported by G. D. Watt.

To Know God is Eternal Life, Etc., by Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 215-221)

 

[tosca1]

The anecdotes makes perfect sense, if you accept, as we do, that Brigham Young was a prophet of God, that God spoke to him and instructed him as to how to lead the church, and what to teach, but also understand that he was a rather arrogant and opinionated individual; and, as I said, careless about distinguishing his own opinions from the doctrine that God instructed him to teach. It's easy to imagine that that morning, he got up and gave a passionate sermon on some opinion he had formed, after which God spoke to him, corrected him, and instructed him as to what he should say in his later speech.

Well I don't know what else I can say to that since I don't believe in him the way you do.

Furthermore, I don't know how any Mormons can convince me that Smith, Young, etc are prophets based on their claims alone - and yet, at the same time dismiss Romans 5:12 as a "misinterpretation," or cast doubt on the accuracy of other Biblical verses.

Yet here we are, you yourself had admitted that the History of Church is inaccurate since we can't tell which from what.....and yet, it's still being quoted by LDS. I mean.....that's quite a double standard, isn't it - and a laughable one at that when we compare it to the reliability of the Bible.

 

[tosca1]

Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post

Can you specify which among the quotes I'd given were not actually said by Smith?


Furthermore, that suggests that the History Of The Church is not a reliable document about the history of LDS?
And yet, it's still being quoted apparently. So how do you know which is accurate and which is not?

You can't really know, except from what can be verified from other sources accepted as reliable.

As I said, History of the Church is useful as a general overview of the history of the church. Accounts of events that happened can be assumed to have come from people who witnessed or experienced those events and who have reported them more or less accurately. It's a useful document, as long as you know its limits.

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/1984/06/the-most-correct-book?lang=eng

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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/1984/06/the-most-correct-book?lang=eng

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.

 

[ludin]

Well I don't know what else I can say to that since I don't believe in him the way you do.

Furthermore, I don't know how any Mormons can convince me that Smith, Young, etc are prophets based on their claims alone - and yet, at the same time dismiss Romans 5:12 as a "misinterpretation," or cast doubt on the accuracy of other Biblical verses.

Yet here we are, you yourself had admitted that the History of Church is inaccurate since we can't tell which from what.....and yet, it's still being quoted by LDS. I mean.....that's quite a double standard, isn't it - and a laughable one at that when we compare it to the reliability of the Bible.

that is the whole thing about it. anything the contradicts what the mormon bible says is simply a mistake in that book when it isn't.
just look at the 20 posts i had to go over on the wrong verbage used for "land of jeruselam". yet i know for a fact that they still won't believe that it is wrong.

there are too many differences between the bible and the book of mormon.

you won't convience me otherwise that a guy who wrote it 1800 years later had more knowledge and better sources than the people that were there to witness the events in question.

 

[tosca1]

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.

Of course, you do realize this throws out the reliability of the Book of Mormons, don't you?

 

[laska]

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.


These verses epitomize Joseph smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But what would you expect in this world of the Lord's true prophets and Church.