I love newby apologists. Folks so fired up by the Gospel of Christ and a desire to defend it, that they take you on everywhere they can.
I have a friend who has been trying on my facebook wall. I like the guy, but he's showing all the classic signs of being a noob.
They first try and appear all objective and into open discussion.
At the first sign of trouble though, they'll start tossing out accusations. "You've been reading Anti-Mormon literature" as though stuff like that should somehow mean something to me.
Then they'll 'tip their hand' and admit that they have researched the matter thoroughly, and to prove it, they'll toss out some namby, pamby fact. Joseph Smith used a masonic call as he was killed.
And then there are the flawless arguments...
I got this gem last night. Somehow the topic went from appropriate behavior in a free society to a blood atonement murder for miscegenation under Brigham Young.
I gave a quote by old Brigham talking about how the penalty for mixing races was death on the spot.
And then came the ultimate copout. Brigham was speaking as a man, and how would I like it, if every word I said was held against me.
I personally wouldn't like it, and neither would anyone.
The thing is... I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO SPEAK FOR GOD!!!
Mormons hold their prophet out on a huge pedestal. Blind obedience and following with exactness are all the marks of the faithful, and yet at the first sign of trouble, they'll toss the whole prophet thing under the bus.
He was just a man, with flaws like you and me.
I actually think he was. And in addition to that, he was a bigot, and a sexist and an all round pig when it came to others.
BUT HE ALSO CLAIMED TO SPEAK FOR GOD! And that is why his words matter to the argument.
This is an argument I've been having with people even when I was a very faithful believer. I'd ask about one of the ridiculous things BY had said, and someone would always throw out the old, "The church doesn't accept that as doctrine/he was speaking as a man, not a prophet."
ReplyDeleteEven when I WANTED to believe that didn't make any kind of sense.
Why would God call a horrible, un-Christlike human being to be his mouthpiece, even if he WASN'T speaking as a prophet? and 2. I'm pretty sure there's a BY quote out there somewhere saying that essentially every word he speaks is scripture, meaning he's NEVER speaking as a man, only as a prophet. I'm too lazy to look it up, but you probably know the one I'm referring to.
The more I read about Brigham Young, the more I learn about just what an evil man he was. He was a usurper, infiltrator, complete bigot, drunk with power, most definitely not a prophet, and murderer for having the Danites kill apostates and ordering the death of Parley P. Pratt.
ReplyDeleteHere are some other things that a lot of TBMs can't seem to grasp, because they can't be bothered to learn this for themselves:
* Joseph Smith was warned that he would fall if he gave in to his carnal lusts and desires, which he did. He was killed before he could complete his repentance.
* From Brigham Young to Thomas Monson: NONE of them can be called prophets, seers or revelators because 1. They were not called of God (Brigham usurped the position after the Quorum of the 12 was supposed to lead as a group and all the others after him simply outlived the rest of the old men). 2. Where are the revelations?
* Gordon B. Hinckley was the anti-Christ. He proclaimed himself to be next in line to become God and fulfilled the "All is well in Zion" prophecy in 2 Nehpi 28. Not to mention his own laundry list of crimes, including likely being responsible for the sudden death of Harold B. Lee.
* The church has been cursed and condemned for over 170 years because of plural marriage, the practice of satanic blood oaths in temples, and altering the Book of Mormon to change the identity of God.
* The gospel and the church are NOT the same thing. It's entirely possible for one to be a good person without joining the church.
* Prophesies of Isaiah identify Salt Lake City as the most wicked city in the world in the last days (Babylon).
* The "prophet" can entirely lead the people astray and he most certainly can't save us. We can only save ourselves.
And so much more...
Anonymous, those may all be valid point - although some of those are new to me.
ReplyDeleteHow do we know that Joseph Smith even had something true to begin with though? It seems easy to dissect the organization following his entry into various affairs and other deviant behavior, but I find the evidence lacking for anything substantive which he may have done before that.
I think he was likely an incredibly intelligent and creative individual, perhaps to a fault, and my impression of his works are that they were based largely in folk magic and predominant themes at the time.
Nothing which would indicate to me a chosen prophet, or divine mission.
Koda, you nailed it when you said you never claimed to speak for god/God. That's the entire point of every argument ever made by all LDSrs.
ReplyDeleteThe one argument that always kills me is the "by their fruits, blah, blah". Yes. By their fruits we can truly known who they are.
My understanding is that when BY made this statement, he was not the prophet, but rather an apostle. OK, maybe he should've known better. But regardless, he wasn't speaking for the Church because he wasn't the prophet.
ReplyDeleteRyan
Ahahahahah, that's great! - "at the first sign of trouble, they'll toss the whole prophet thing under the bus." !!!
ReplyDeleteAgain and again I am struck by the uselessness of prophets in terms of protecting/forewarning the 'saints'. I think the Mormon God could have done a little better in caring for his/her chosen people. Seriously, if a prophet is speaking gods word then shouldn't that group of followers be way ahead in terms of overturning racist, sexist and homophobic traditions!!
Pretty much all of the points that the first Anonymous poster listed come from information on the mormonstruth.org website and its sister sites. Some very interesting stuff in there.
ReplyDeleteRyan, BY never claimed to be a prophet, but that didn't stop him from leading the church and the people astray.
M, God hasn't supported the Mormons for the same reason why He stopped supporting ancient Israel in the Old Testament: They aren't keeping His covenants and therefore have no promise. The official church history likes to get emo about how the Mormons were driven from their homes in Missouri and of course conveniently leaves out the fact that the Mormons were committing those same crimes against the people living there when they first arrived! Is it any small wonder that God ceased to support them after Kirtland?
I'm reading Dawn Brodie's NO MAN KNOWS MY HISTORY right now, and some of Joseph Smith's pronouncements and doctrines were quite absurd. I always wondered how the LDS coped with some of their founder's less noble words and deeds, and now I know -- they can easily be dismissed as the act of a man rather than God.
ReplyDelete"an all around pig" haha. Couldn't have put it better myself!!!
ReplyDeleteBY isn't the only one with gems the church try to cover up or dismiss as a man speaking "not as the prophet" there are plenty of quotes where these men are speaking as if THEY THINK they are speaking with authority, ABSOLUTE authority. So here's my challenge to those that still buy the church's line on this. (apparently no one here but I'm saying it anyway). Even if it was possible that they were speaking as men not as prophets how could they be a prophet, or an apostle, and NOT KNOW the difference? Shouldn't THEY have known wither Blood Atonement was a true principle, or the "mark of Cain/less valiant" justification for black oppression, or the Adam God declaration, etc, etc... If they didn't know better then they were neither prophets, seers, or revelators.Thanks Koda for the post!
ReplyDeleteGood point, Brian.
ReplyDeleteAnd Koda, I also enjoyed the phrase about throwing the whole prophet thing under the bus. Nice piece of writing.
I find it interesting that TBMs today will assert that everything that is spoken in conference is the word of God, yet forget that the most outlandish declarations of Brigham Young were also spoken from the conference pulpit. How, then, I would ask these people, are we to determine whether Monson is speaking as a man or as a prophet in conference if we can't even tell when Brigham was?
A lot of people in church are looking for somebody with all the answers, as you suggested a couple of posts ago. When they eventually discover that prophets don't have all the answers, people react in a variety of ways. I think we can describe two sets of reaction for each of two kinds of personalities. I'd divide the personalities by comfort level with ambiguity. some are fundamentalists who require certainty and some are more OK with not knowing things. The fundamentalist group, with that particular need for certainty, when confronted with the prospect of prophets who were wrong about something, or other challenges, follow one of two directions. Either they resist any hint that ambiguity might exist, closing their eyes to such evidence, or throw the whole idea out saying in essence, if prophets aren't perfect, what good are they. The ambiguouist group when confronted with the idea that prophets have been wrong, also have a couple of typical reactions. Either they will get comfortable with the idea that prophets are just doing their best like the rest of us and can still be prophets whose words we have to figure out for ourselves, or they will get comfortable with figuring everything out by themselves, sans prophets.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if people are willing to look they can see plenty of scriptural examples of prophets being wrong.
@Alan Rock Waterman:
"How, then, I would ask these people, are we to determine whether Monson is speaking as a man or as a prophet in conference if we can't even tell when Brigham was?"
Ummm, by prayer and personal revelation just like any other time.
Geez, I'd definitely say ditch the Prophet whether you're a fundie or an Ambie. Now that I consider the whole thing (GOd, prophets, BOM etc) to be a sham I am disgusted by how many times I listened to the advice of homophobic, racist octogenarian misogynists! Seriously, my 'prophetic' advice is to read, discuss, meditate, live and love (which I know you already do Retief). Out of interest what is the last thing that a prophet/apostle taught you that you consider to be prophetic and of great use in your life?
ReplyDeleteIn the last general conference Pres. Monson reminded us of DC 121. That the priesthood is an invitation to persuade, to suffer, to practice gentleness and meekness, to love, to be kind, and to seek knowledge. To the extent we are doing those things we are able to access the power of God. To the extent that we aren't, we're forfeiting that possibility, because it is not accessible in any other way. Elder Uchtdorf touched on a similar theme.
ReplyDeleteMr Monson also indicated that I could exercise ' righteous dominion' over my wife... Now, as sweet as the beautiful Mrs Koda is... That's just lousy advice for my marriage and personal wellbeing.
ReplyDeletePrecisely, the only kind of righteous dominion is persuasion, gentleness, meekness, kindness, etc. How would those go over?
ReplyDeleteI don't have, nor do I exercise dominion over my wife. She is my friend, my partner and equal, but at the end of the day she is an individual over whom I have no control, not do I want it.
ReplyDelete国外视频网站 , 台湾免费视讯 , 日本视讯聊天室 , 免费视频裸聊 , 免费成人视频在线 , 免费视频成人 , 在线视频 , 24小时裸聊视频免费 , 视频表演裸聊 , 裸聊全免费的qq
ReplyDelete