Mormon Discussion Podcast

We start a series today where we break down specific issues and weigh how much irrational ideas we have to believe in order for Mormonism to be true. Sit with how much allowances and conjecture is required for these small specific topics within Mormonism. For this series we use the book “Obscure Mormon Doctrine” written by Chris Jensen The post Mormon Discussion: 367: Is Mormonism Absurd – Adam Our First Parent appeared first on Mormon Discussion by Bill Reel.

Major News in Mormonism happened this week when a photograph surfaced alleging to be the Prophet Joseph Smith. So Bill and RFM dug into the story and followed the trail examining the Photographs, Portraits, Daguerreotypes, and other depictions both known to be Joseph for certain and also alleged to see if we could get to the bottom of what Joseph Smith really looked like. RESOURCES: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2012/12/small-and-simple-things/what-did-joseph-smith-really-look-like?lang=eng https://www.calledtoshare.com/2020/11/12/what-did-joseph-smith-really-look-like-8-images-that-provide-us-with-clues/ https://latterdaysaintmag.com/hidden-things-what-did-joseph-smith-actually-look-like/ https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/1997-12-06/what-did-joseph-smith-really-look-like-128922 Book – Images of the Prophet Joseph Smith: Davis Bitton – https://www.amazon.com/Images-Prophet-Joseph-Smith-Bitton/dp/1562362232 https://youtu.be/Qjpd7ufLGIk?t=1 https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Skulls-and-Crossed-Bones-A-Forensic-Study-of-the-Remains-of-Hyrum-and-Joseph-Smith.pdf https://www.knowbrotherjoseph.com/death-mask-unreliable https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/i2icav/ai_can_analyse_a_portrait_and_calculate_what_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/w5durw/all_the_pieces_fit/ http://silverepicent.com/photofound/photofound/Photograph_Found/RLDS_Painting.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5aUTj-VvRM – Historical discussion of the Joseph Smith photo discovery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rspFgoyU5Hg – amateur facial analysis of the Death Mask and the newly discovered photo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzk4Z4Wrz38 – 2nd amateur facial analysis of the Death Mask and the newly discovered photo. The post Mormonism LIVE: 086: Would the Real Joseph Smith Please Stand Up? appeared first on Mormon Discussion by Bill Reel.

RFM and Bill sit down with Ronald Huggins, author of the new book “Lighthouse: Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Despised and Beloved Critics of Mormonism” & Sandra Tanner who is featured in the book to discuss some of the interesting stories that went into the published work.  And towards the end of the show we discuss Bill recently dealing with a threat from the son of one of the General Authorities who heads up the SCMC (Strengthening Church Members Committee) as well as Bill’s recent interaction with FAIR regarding God’s carnal intercourse with Mary, the Mother of Jesus The post Mormonism LIVE: 085: Lighthouse – The Story of Tanners appeared first on Mormon Discussion by Bill Reel.

When RFM and Bill Reel joined Mormonism, they heard rumors that Early LDS Leaders had taught that Mary was impregnated by Heavenly Father via a sexual act. But the Church and its apologists insisted that such idea was a misconstrued out of context assumption and with a sleight of hand the problem was gone…. Or is it. Tonight on Mormonism LIVE, RFM and Bill Reel take a long hard look at where this idea comes from within the history and see if baby Jesus was in fact the illegitimate child of our heavenly father. RESOURCES: BRIGHAM YOUNG—APRIL 9, 1852—JD 1:50-51 https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/1861 (This is a BYU Library Digital Collections page) My next sermon will be…. Stems from D&C 130:22 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130?lang=eng     The father has a body of flesh and bones (resurrected from another world)     There are three personages; if only one, this question would never come up; but because there are three, and because we are being hyper-literal about things; this question does come up, and BY resolves the question by saying Jesus is not the son of the Holy Ghost, but the son of the Father. Heber C. Kimball: SEPTEMBER 2, 1860 “In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it.” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:211] ORSON PRATT IN AGREEMENT! ORSON PRATT—The Seer, Vol 1. No. 10, 1853 (page 158-59) https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/18108 Orson Pratt: the Holy Ghost gave her [Mary] strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called ‘the Only Begotten of the Father;’ that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters who he begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones [The Seer, 158.] GOD MARRIED TO MARY—STARTS WITH ORSON PRATT? The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully. (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158) Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity. (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158) NOTE: Orson Pratt was opposed to BY on the Adam-God Theory; i.e., that it was Adam who came and had sex with Mary; but Orson Pratt was totally on board with the idea that Elohim did the exact same thing! BUT THEN BRIGHAM YOUNG ECHOES THE IDEA Brigham Young AUGUST 19, 1866 “The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband.” [Journal of Discourses, vol. 11:268] Bill: Orson Pratt and Brigham Young Agree…. Huh –  It is not just a single quote “hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk”. JESUS THE CHRIST—JAMES TALMAGE Mention My Special Little Leather Book! Chapter 7—Page 81 (published 1915) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-7?lang=eng His message delivered, Gabriel departed, leaving the chosen Virgin of Nazareth to ponder over her wondrous experience. Mary’s promised Son was to be “The Only Begotten” of the Father in the flesh; so it had been both positively and abundantly predicted. True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly essential to the fulfillment of prophecy as that it should occur at all. That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the “Son of the Highest.” In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman. MELVIN J. BALLARD (1923) https://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONR/itc/Book%20_of_Mormon/02_1nephi/1nephi11/1nephi11_08conceptionjesus_mjb.htm Melvin J. Ballard (Mormon apostle): “as to whether or not his was a virgin birth, a birth wherein divine power interceded. … And if God the Eternal Father is not the real Father of Jesus Christ, then are we in confusion; then is he not in reality the Son of God. But we declare that he is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. … No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God. Men who deny this, or who think that it degrades our Father, have no true conception of the sacredness of the most marvelous power with which God has endowed mortal men–the power of creation. Even though that power may be abused and may become a mere harp of pleasure to the wicked, nevertheless it is the most sacred and holy and divine function with which God has endowed man. Made holy, it is retained by the Father of us all, and in his exercise of that great and marvelous creative power and function, he did not debase himself, degrade himself, nor debauch his daughter. Thus Christ became the literal Son of a divine Father, and no one else was worthy to be his father.” [Deseret News, 23 Dec 1923; Sermons and Missionary Services of Melvin J. Ballard, 166-167.] JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH CHAPTER 2 THE SON OF GOD THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON THE FIRSTBORN. DOCTRINES OF SALVATION, VOLUME 1:12-14 https://josephsmithfoundation.org/doctrines-of-salvation/ CHRIST NOT BEGOTTEN OF HOLY GHOST. I believe firmly that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. He taught this doctrine to his disciples. He did not teach them that he was the Son of the Holy Ghost, but the Son of the Father. Truly, all things are done by the power of the Holy Ghost. It was through this power that Jesus was brought into this world, but not as the Son of the Holy Ghost, but the Son of God. Jesus is greater than the Holy Spirit, which is subject unto him,but his Father is greater than he! He has said it. Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God! ***** FALSE “REORGANITE” DOCTRINE ABOUT BIRTH OF CHRIST. “Reorganites” claim that Brigham Young went astray and apostatized because he declared that Jesus Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost. “Reorganites claim that he was begotten of the Holy Ghost, and they make the statement that the scriptures so teach. But they do err not understanding the scriptures. They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge the statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible. It is true there is one passage that states so, but we must consider it in the light of other passages with which it is in conflict. NOTE: This ties in later with the FAIR response which relies first on the passage of scripture that JSF challenges and refutes! ******** CHRIST NOT SON OF THE HOLY GHOST. If “Reorganites” are correct, then Jesus is not the Only Begotten Son of the Father, but the Son of the Holy Ghost. This will not do for it conflicts with the scriptures. The Prophet taught that the Father. Son, and Holy Ghost were three separate personages, and that Jesus was the Only Begotten of the Father. In the Book of Genesis (Inspired Version), Jesus is spoken of throughout as the Only Begotten of the Father not less than 12 times, and in the Book of Mormon at least five times, and a great number of times in the Doctrine and Covenants; and in these scriptures he is spoken of as the Son of God innumerable times. Now, if he is the Only Begotten of the Father in flesh, he must be the Son of the Father and not the Son of the Holy Ghost. Yet, to be consistent, “Reorganites” must claim that Jesus is the Son of the Holy Ghost and not the Son of God the Father. Their alternative — if it can be called such — must be, then, the stand of Mr. William H. Kelley, “president” of their “apostles,” who gave a written statement in answer to the question put to him by the writer, September 10, 1903: “You say that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was begotten of the Holy Ghost. Is he the Son of the Holy Ghost?” Mr. Kelley signed his answer as follows: “I do not know. Wm. H. Kelley.” Just think of this for a moment. Here is a man professing to be the chief of the special witnesses for Christ, declaring that he does not know whether Jesus is the Son of God the Father or the Son of the Holy Ghost. And the Savior declared it so plainly that he was the Son of the Father, his Only Begotten, and was so acknowledged by the Father throughout the scriptures. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Joseph F  Smith 1914:: “Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father …Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body” [1972 “Family Home Evening Journal” pg 126 ] https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/godmaryhomeevening1972.png BRUCE R. McCONKIE (MORMON DOCTRINE) 1st edition 1958 (pg 495 in adobe version) https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/6/6b/1958-Mormon_Doctrine-Bruce_R_McConkie.pdf Only Begotten Son. See BELOVED SoN, CHRIST, SoN, SoN OF God. Christ is the Only Begotten (Moses I :6, 17, 21, 33; 2:1, 26-27; 3: 18; 4:1), the Only Begotten Son (Jae. 4:5, I I; Alma 12:33-34; 13:5; D. & C. 20:21; 29:42; 49:5; 76:13, 25; John 1:18; 3: 16), the Only Begotten of the Father. (Moses 5:9.) These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally: Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers. (p. 494) SON OF GOD: (p. 670) God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says. REDEFINITION OF WORD “VIRGIN” “For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being” (The Promised Messiah, pg. 466). Mormon Doctrine—First Edition—1958—page 745 Virgin Birth. SEE ANNUNCIATION, BIRTH, CHRIST, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION THEORY, MARY. Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, “was carried away in the Spirit” (1 Ne. 11:13-21), was “overshadowed” by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place “by the power of the Holy Ghost” resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7: 10; 2 Ne. 17: 14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. I, pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false. NOTE: This innovation allows for Mary to still be a “virgin” so long as we define a virgin who has never had sex with a man; but apparently Mary could have physical sex with an immortal being and still be considered a “virgin.” EZRA TAFT BENSON Ezra Taft Benson quoted in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, page 725 And then 729 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MORMONISM (1990) https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/EoM/id/3818 Eldred G Smith : “If our Father in heaven is an exalted being-I just want to knock one little principle that is taught around the world that I cannot believe-then he has the capacity and the ability of accomplishing and doing anything that any mortal can do. I cannot believe this doctrine that is taught universally of an immaculate conception of Christ, that Christ was born from an immaculate conception. There is no such thing possible. Jesus Christ was the literal Son of God the Father by his spirit body and also by his physical body. The difference between Christ and us is that he had the same Father for his spirit body that he had for his physical body. But He had a mortal mother on earth. The scriptures say that she was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost. (See Luke 1:35.) Of course there had to be some means of making this possible while she was still in mortality. Further details are not necessary, but Christ himself declared all his life that he was the Son of God, and he meant it” (Eldred G. Smith (Patriarch to the Church), March 10, 1964, BYU Speeches of the Year, 1964, p.8). IN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION “He is the Son of God, literally, actually, as men are the sons of mortal parents..” (What the Mormons Think of Christ, a pamphlet published by the LDS Church, p. 27) 1982 https://issuu.com/vintageldspamphlets/docs/what_the_mormons_think_of_christ_19_d4a3fb717d1404 Bill:  https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Mormon-Leaders-claim-God-impregnated-Mary-by-sex.pdf Wait a minute…. Brigham Young taught it, Orson Pratt Agreed, The early brethren taught it including Heber C Kimball and Melvin J Ballard.  It has been taught over and over by Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R McConkie, Ezra Taft Benson.  It was spoken of as a way to know LDS Mormonism was true and the Reorganites weren’t. It was taught in Jesus the Christ, part of the “approved missionary library” and is spoken of in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism which while not official ?  Huh…  So It is not just a single quote “hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk”.   PLAY NEIL ANDERSON QUOTE  Harold B Lee: “Bruce Bracken [Address Redacted]Logan Utah 84321 Dear Bro. Bracken,We are very much concerned that some of our teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of teaching doctrine that cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said. You asked about the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.“Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary’s] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughtsLet the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more.” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams Sincerely Yours, Harold B Lee (Private Letter January 2nd 1969) FAIR RESPONSE https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Did_God_have_Sex_with_Mary.pdf Doesn’t quote from Brigham Young! Goes to the scriptures that Joseph Fielding Smith argued against! RESOURCES: https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Mormon-Leaders-claim-God-impregnated-Mary-by-sex.pdf https://www.mrm.org/virgin-birth https://issuu.com/vintageldspamphlets/docs/what_the_mormons_think_of_christ_19_d4a3fb717d1404 https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Did_God_have_Sex_with_Mary.pdf https://beliefmap.org/mormonism/mormonism-teaches-god-and-mary-sexually-produced-jesus https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/godmaryhom The post Mormonism LIVE: 084: Did God Have Sex With Mary? appeared first on Mormon Discussion by Bill Reel.

If one is finally at a place where they really want to understand both sides, really want to wrestle with their faith, what are the books that best introduce the believer to the complex history, the fallibility of prophets, and the trauma of Mormon influence? Bill and RFM seek to lay out a list of books that introduce the reader to a more full picture of Mormonism, of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it leaders since that spring morning in 1820. Fawn Brodie – No Man Knows my History Richard Bushman – Rough Stone Rolling D. Michael Quinn – Early Mormonism and the Magic World View D. Michael Quinn – The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power D. Michael Quinn – The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power Greg Prince – Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History Greg Prince – David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism Paul Reeve – Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness  Devery Scott Anderson – Development of LDS Temple Worship Todd Compton – In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith Grant Palmer – An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins Linda King Newell & Valeen Tippetts Avery – Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith Charley Harrel – This is My Doctrine Juanita Brooks – The Mountain Meadows Massacre Carol Lynn Pearson – Goodbye I Love You Greg Prince – Gay Rights and the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences Eber D Howe – Mormonism Unveiled – Dan Vogel commentary Robert Ritner—The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Egyptian-Papyri-Complete/dp/1560852321 Robert Ritner—Paper—Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham— https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/Research_Archives/Translation%20and%20Historicity%20of%20the%20Book%20of%20Abraham%20final-2.pdf Jeremy Runnells—CES Letter https://cesletter.org/ The post Mormonism LIVE: 083: The Best Books for Diving into the Messiness of Mormonism appeared first on Mormon Discussion by Bill Reel.

We sit down with Former BYU Professor, and author of the book “This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology”, Charley Harrell to dive into several important assumptions Mormonism and its leaders and members impose in order to cleanly define doctrine. But do these really hold up? Can the word Doctrine as used within the LDS Church be defined in such a way that any imposed definition can be dependable? A.) What is Church doctrine? Dictionary Definition = Doctrine comes from the Latin Doctrina which means “teachings.” The first definition that comes up in a Google search is from the Oxford English Dictionary: “a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group. ‘the doctrine of predestination’” So essentially, religious doctrines are simply the teachings or beliefs of a particular religion. Generally Understood = The term “doctrine” is generally used in the Church to refer either to propositional statements about God and his works or to explanatory narratives about how God operates in the world. Propositional statements include: God has a body, God created the world, Christ died for the sins of the world. Explanatory narratives include: How the world came to be, How the priesthood works, How the Church was lost and restored, How the atonement and plan of salvation work. “Official” doctrine comprises those teachings which are found in the scriptures, current Church publications, and are agreed upon by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12. Neil Anderson “Trial of Your Faith” – “A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. Periodical = https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng Audio = https://www.dropbox.com/s/q84cy1su76kkpw5/AndersonDoctrineNotHardToFind.mp3?dl=0 We should share briefly that LDS leaders have attempted to define doctrine in ways that expose that the word is fluid and simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny or critical thinking. What does this definition say about doctrines that were widely taught in prior times and no longer taught today? Plural Marriage (MY EXPERIENCE IN HIGH PRIEST GROUP ABOUT DOCTRINE) Reason for the priesthood ban Lamanite identification Does the fact that it has to be taught by everyone in the 1st presidency and Q12 impose an unreasonably high bar? WASN’T THERE AT TIME NOT TOO LONG AGO WHEN DOCTRINE WAS ESTABLISHED FIRST BY WHETHER THE PROPHET SAID IT; THEN BY WHETHER IT WAS A FIRST PRESIDENCY STATEMENT; THEN (NOW) BY WHETHER ALL FIFTEEN AGREE? IT SEEMS THAT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND QUORUM OF TWELVE HAVE ALL BUT DISAPPEARED AT LEAST WHEN IT COMES TO ESTABLISHING DOCTRINE Does Elder Anderson’s doctrine of doctrine meet his own criteria of doctrine? D. Todd Christofferson “At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.””  Periodical = https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng QUESTION: WHEN IS A PROPHET ACTING AS SUCH IF NOT WHEN HE IS ADDRESSING THE CHURCH IN HIS ROLE AS PROPHET?  IT SHOULD REALLY BE VERY SIMPLE; NOT A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD EVERY TIME A PROPHET SPEAKS AS A PROPHET AND GETS IT WRONG. Audio = https://www.dropbox.com/s/q6ar0dwvdfq1iv8/DoctrineVsStatementsCristofferson.mp3?dl=0 Other definitions given by the Church  (Don’t need to go in depth) “Doctrine—The truths of the gospel in general. Instruction and confirmation in the truths of the gospel.” Church Newsroom remains ambiguous The Church makes several claims about Mormon doctrines that together can be said to constitute the doctrine of LDS doctrine. But are these claims really warranted by empirical evidence? B.) Claims vs Realities Claim: Mormon doctrine derives primarily from the Standard Works and official statements of the Church leadership. The Church Newsroom states, “[Our] doctrine resides in the four ‘standard works’ of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.” (LDS Newsroom 2007) THIS IS WHAT I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE IN THE WRITINGS OF BRM AND JFS; THAT DOCTRINE IS ESTABLISHED BY THE STANDARD WORKS; THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CALLED THE STANDARD WORKS; AND IF ANY LEADER TEACHES SOMETHING CONTRARY TO THE STANDARD WORKS, YOU CAN KNOW IT IS NOT CORRECT. Reality: Doctrine doesn’t just jump out of the scriptures, it has to be interpreted by the reader. LDS doctrine, therefore, doesn’t actually “reside” in the scriptures, but in the Church’s interpretation of the scriptures. Further, since scripture is not univocal, one must pick and choose which passages to use. So in reality Mormon doctrine derives from a biased selection of scriptural fragments, often taken out of context, that are cobbled together to construct a doctrinal view. Things not in the scriptures or misunderstood become hard truths within the Church – April 6th  & Take, for example, the three degrees of glory… Things that are in the scriptures are discarded or altered once worldly evidence comes to be accepted.  (flood, tower of babel, 6000 year old earth, racism, april 6th) Claim: Church doctrines are eternal truths. The underlying logic is that, Because God is a God of truth and would never lie, all of the teachings he reveals through his prophets are true. Joseph Smith – “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught” (HC, 6:366). Russell M. Nelson – TIME STAMP 13:47 to 14:58  – “Sometimes we as leaders of the Church are criticized for holding firm to the laws of God, defending the Savior’s doctrine, and resisting the social pressures of our day. But our commission as ordained apostles is “to go into all the world to preach [His] gospel unto every creature.”8 That means we are commanded to teach truth. In doing so, sometimes we are accused of being uncaring as we teach the Father’s requirements for exaltation in the celestial kingdom. But wouldn’t it be far more uncaring for us not to tell the truth—not to teach what God has revealed? It is precisely because we do care deeply about all of God’s children that we proclaim His truth. We may not always tell people what they want to hear. Prophets are rarely popular. But we will always teach the truth!” Reality: Many doctrines have been shown to be in error, especially when disproven by science (age of the earth, of man, etc.) and therefore changed or even discarded. Doctrine and Truth intersect at some points, but the circle of LDS doctrine is not the same as or even a subset of the circle of truth. Claim: As a corollary to above, if a prophet speaks under the influence of the Holy Ghost, it is going to be God’s word and therefore be true. And we can know a prophet is inspired by the witness of the HG to us. Reality: There are many examples where prophets claimed to be speaking under the power of the HG, and yet their teachings were later rejected.  (There are also many examples where members knew those doctrines were true through spiritual means and such has since been disavowed) Furthermore, what we deem to be spiritual promptings are suspect and inconsistent. A major problem with relying on feelings is that neither we nor a prophet can know for certain when the HG is inspiring us. Like Richard Bushman said regarding patriarchs, we are all just doing the best we can to try to recognize the voice of God. The circular reasoning behind inspiration is apparent: The Church asks us to pray to know whether its teachings are true, but insists that the Spirit will only witness what the Church teaches to be true. Claim: Doctrine, because it is eternal truth, is consistent throughout scripture and prophetic teachings. Bruce R. McConkie – “The word of the Lord is truth, and no scripture ever contradicts another, nor is any inspired statement of any person out of harmony with an inspired statement of any other person.” Reality: The doctrinal teachings of scripture are not consistent. Some passages speak of God as a spirit, others refer to him as having a body of flesh and bones. So to speak of any scriptural doctrine as though scripture is univocal is unsustainable. Example: Christ preaching to spirits in prison. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fgeneral-conference%2F2001%2F10%2Fliving-in-the-fulness-of-times%3Flang%3Deng%26fbclid%3DIwAR0uarahrZrhOROjnQ9RInZBuVPRopqpfgomtIztFfINYbEQPMKafg_kuI4&h=AT2aY1Ss8bWLrHs9fzr7ohEfOayCfewGCUF2f_16RECYEGvNrKcrYMmVPV9MaCWLbi2w-i-5OzaGV9GkikfcgF3NJ4-QVpqPUH5acAtVkJL3qu7TJJP1hHMaMmmLpVH7bgyuWtDVg1fKzGbWbwk Claim: Doctrine, because it is eternal truth, never changes over time, and the same doctrines taught today were taught to Adam and the other ancient prophets. a.) “Those who observe us say that we are moving into the mainstream of religion. We are not changing. The world’s perception of us is changing. We teach the same doctrine. We have the same organization.” – Gordon B. Hinckley Reality: Many doctrines have changed over time. In fact, as shown in my book, there isn’t a single major doctrine of the Church that hasn’t changed with time, especially if we go back to biblical times. The doctrinal teachings of the Bible are significantly different from those taught in the Church today, including the nature of God, preexistence, the Fall and nature of man, the afterlife, ordinances of salvation, etc. When a doctrinal change occurs, Church leaders might give one or more of the following explanations to camouflage the change, so it appears that no change has occurred: (1) the doctrine has simply broadened, (2) we have always taught it this way, (3) prior prophets were speaking as men, or (4) what changed was a policy, not a doctrine.. AND (4) IT ISN’T A CHANGE; IT IS A CLARIFICATION.  (RFM) In cases where a new doctrine is introduced that is unsupported by or contradicts the Bible, the assertion is sometimes made that it is because it was altered or removed by the great and abominable church. Biblical scholarship has shown, however, that the Bible (both Old and NT) has been passed down with reasonable integrity and that there is no major loss or change from the oldest extant texts. Note: The fact that the Church defines Doctrine as eternal, unchanging truth makes one wonder if the Church has any doctrines at all, since virtually all of its doctrines have undergone change. Perhaps the Church should either use a different term or redefine what doctrine means. Claim: Doctrinal development (we can’t call it change) always results in progressively better doctrines. And thus God leads us towards greater light and knowledge. Joseph Fielding Smith – “It is true that a divine revelation admits of no change, but it may admit of additional knowledge or development and information….His word to man comes in steps, piecemeal, as his servants are prepared to receive it. But there will be no conflict between the part first revealed, and the latter part revealed, they will harmonize.“ Joseph Fielding Smith, Man: His Origin and Destiny, 470. My emphasis.470. (This view is even held by LDS intellectuals such as Terryl Givens, Sam Brown, etc.) Reality: There is no preordained path along which doctrine unfolds to a fullness of truth. Instead there were unforeseen twists and turns, zigs and zags, which could have led to radically different outcomes. It is only the particular random forces at play that caused each doctrine to turn out like it has so far. For example the LDS doctrine of God’s nature reflected contemporary Christan ideas. Then the literalistic folk ideas encountered by JS resulted in God being given flesh and bones. Many of the teachings in the BoM (creation, eternal punishment, fate of those who die without knowledge of the gospel, second coming, etc.) also reflected contemporary ideas known to JS and were later modified as he became exposed to more literalistic and fringe religious ideas. Other doctrines are simply quietly discarded  (Lamanite identity, reasons for blacks being denied priesthood, Adam-God, Blood atonement, Polygamy necessary for exaltation,  etc.) As to whether doctrinal modification yields greater light and knowledge, we really have no way of knowing. Karen Armstrong wrote that religious ideas have “not evolved from one point and progressed in a linear fashion to a final conception. Scientific notions work like that but the ideas of art and religion do not.” One could certainly argue that the priesthood ban and introduction of plural marriage were steps backward and not forward. To its credit, the church has discarded several of its doctrines which conflict with science, but only after years of pushing back and only when the scientific view had become irrefutable and widely accepted. Claim: As promised in the 9th article of faith, we believe that God will continue to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. And trying to hold back the Lord from pouring knowledge on the Saints is like holding back the mighty Missouri river by sticking your hand in it.In recent years, and as part of the ongoing restoration of all things, the Lord has been especially active in rolling out new doctrines and expanding existing ones. Pres. Nelson – “If you think the Church has been fully restored, you’re just seeing the beginning. There is much more to come. … Wait till next year. And then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get your rest. It’s going to be exciting.” Russell M. Nelson, in “Latter-day Saint Prophet, Wife and Apostle Share Insights of Global Ministry,” Oct. 30, 2018, newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org. Reality: The kinds of things that are being “restored” are all minor and pertain to procedural and organizational issues. There is little, if any, further light and knowledge on doctrinal matters. In fact, on doctrinal matters, there has actually been a roll back, so that we know less now then we did before. Lamanite identity age of the earth time of the second coming and millennium why blacks were denied the priesthood and temple blessings the general geography of the BoM that plural marriage was required for the highest exaltation How the BoM was translated Location of Garden of Eden Adam-God That we would become just like God and not only get our own world but create worlds of our own Notice that these are all doctrines that history, science and cultural pressures have caused the church to rethink. More and more, the answer to questions for which we used to have answers for is, “We don’t know” or “we don’t teach that.” It was taught to us that having prophets meant we were continually receiving new truth which was added to what we have and the reality is that by having prophets we actually are reducing the number of things we are certain about and are pulling past doctrines off the truth cart.  Hence by having prophets we know less and less compared to what we used to. Claim: we can be certain about all of our claims regarding Church doctrine, because we have the testimony of scripture, modern prophets and witness of the Holy Ghost. Reality: These claims don’t warrant the level of certainty that leaders often place on them and which lead members to blindly accept them without investigation. It isn’t that the Church makes so many claims about doctrine that is disturbing, but the certainty they place in these claims. Consider Pres. Oak’s absolute certainty about gender being eternally determined and fixed in the recent April general conference, stating that it is “founded on irrevocable doctrine.” And this is a doctrine that isn’t found anywhere in the scriptures and collides with the lived experience of many. A few years back Peter Enns wrote a great book called “the Sin of Certainty.” In my mind, that still remains the greatest roadblock to doctrinal progress in the Church. In spite of minor improvements, there is a long way to go. How long will it take before the church relaxes its position, for example, that “gender is eternal.” C.) Conclusion: The doctrine of LDS doctrine is a set of highly questionable truth claims that renders all other doctrines suspect. What is the future outlook for LDS doctrine? Are there any signs that Church leaders may be starting to recognize the unsustainability of these claims? The post Mormonism LIVE: 082: Charley Harrell & Contemplating Mormon Doctrine appeared first on Mormon Discussion by Bill Reel.

Aleesha Franklin, daughter of Ponzi-scheme magnate Gaylen Rust, returns to Mormonism LIVE to share her personal story of how a catastrophic failure of Priesthood Leadership, both local and general, led to her disaffection from the LDS Church The post Mormonism LIVE: 081: A Failure of the Priesthood appeared first on Mormon Discussion by Bill Reel.

RFM and Bill take a look at Patriarchal Blessings looking at what these are and what they are not and even take a look at multiple Patriarchal Blessings from the same patriarchs attempting to untangle inspiration from the rote and mundane. OVERVIEW AND ELDRED G. SMITH   Patriarchal Blessings are to declare lineage, and then to give direction, counsel and promise predicated on worthiness. Patriarchs in every stake now; but the Church Patriarch Office has been done away with. Brief Clip from Eldred G. Smith in 1976 General Conference so we can remember what it used to be like when we had a Church Patriarch. We will also be talking more about him later.   ELDRED G. SMITH (April Gen Con 1976—Who is Jesus? Emeritus General Authority (6 Oct 1979 – 4 Apr 2013) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1976/04/who-is-jesus?lang=eng TIME STAMP 0.00-0.24 Eldred was a frequent speaker in general conference, and spoke about patriarchal blessings but only before 1971 when they started putting up the general conference talks at the church’s website. At least this gives a sample of what he sounded like.                 OVERVIEW OF PATRIARCHAL BLESSINGS     Saints Unscripted with Patriarch on the Show! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzahqA5Ot9E TIME STAMP 6.00-7.32 It is revelation from God; all the promises will be fulfilled; it is personal scripture to the recipient.     October 1986 General Conference—Thomas S. Monson—Second Counselor in First Presidency   YOUR PATRIARCHAL BLESSING: A LIAHONA OF LIGHT https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1986/10/your-patriarchal-blessing-a-liahona-of-light?lang=eng   TIME STAMP 5.40-6.27 Who is this man, this patriarch, through whom such seership and priesthood power flow? How is he called? The Council of the Twelve Apostles has special responsibility pertaining to the calling of such men. From my own experience I testify that patriarchs are called of God by prophecy. How else could our Heavenly Father reveal those to whom such prophetic powers are to be given? A patriarch holds an ordained office in the Melchizedek Priesthood. The patriarchal office, however, is one of blessing—not of administration.   NOTE: WHY IS IT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APOSTLES TO CALL A PATRIARCH WHEN IT IS DETERMINED BY LINEAGE? NOTE: WHY DOES PRESIDENT MONSON FEEL COMPELLED TO ADD THE LANGUAGE,  THAT THE PATRIARCHAL OFFICE IS ONE OF BLESSING, “NOT ONE OF ADMINISTRATION”?     PATRIARCHAL BLESSINGS NOT TO BE SHARED Gospel Topics Essay on Church Website under “Patriarchal Blessings” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/patriarchal-blessings?lang=eng   Patriarchal blessings are sacred and personal. They may be shared with immediate family members, but should not be read aloud in public or read or interpreted by others. Not even the patriarch or bishop or branch president should interpret it.   BACK TO THOMAS S. MONSON TALK FROM 1986.   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1986/10/your-patriarchal-blessing-a-liahona-of-light?lang=eng   TIME STAMP 10:13-11:14 A patriarchal blessing is a revelation to the recipient, even a white line down the middle of the road, to protect, inspire, and motivate activity and righteousness. A patriarchal blessing literally contains chapters from your book of eternal possibilities. I say eternal, for just as life is eternal, so is a patriarchal blessing. What may not come to fulfillment in this life may occur in the next. We do not govern God’s timetable. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8–9).   NOTE: WE ALREADY GET THE APOLOGETIC FOR WHEN PATRIARCHAL BLESSINGS DO NOT COME TO PASS.   TIME STAMP 11.14-12.49 (NOTE-WE ARE JUST GOING TO DO THE FIRST FOUR SENTENCES OF THIS NEXT QUOTE; ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS ESTABLISH THAT THE ISSUE OF BRIEF OR LENGTHY PBs IS ADDRESSED)   Your patriarchal blessing is yours and yours alone. It may be brief or lengthy, simple or profound. Length and language do not a patriarchal blessing make. It is the Spirit that conveys the true meaning. Your blessing is not to be folded neatly and tucked away. It is not to be framed or published. Rather, it is to be read. It is to be loved. It is to be followed. Your patriarchal blessing will see you through the darkest night. It will guide you through life’s dangers. (NOTE: ORIGINAL SAYS “IT WILL PROTECT YOU.”) Unlike the struggling bomber of yesteryear, lost in the desert wastes, the sands and storms of life will not destroy you on your eternal flight. Your patriarchal blessing is to you a personal Liahona to chart your course and guide your way.   NOTE: QUESTION ABOUT LENGTH OF PATRIARCHAL BLESSING OBLIQUELY ANSWERED; BECAUSE OF THE IDEA THAT A LONGER BLESSING IS A BETTER BLESSING.     PATRIARCHAL BLESSINGS DURING THE PRIESTHOOD BAN   Digest of the minutes of the meeting of the patriarchs of the church with the General Authorities held in Barratt Hall, Salt Lake City, Utah, Saturday, October 11, 1958, at 8:00 A.M. From Later Patriarchal Blessings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pgs 559-563. Compiled by H. Michael Marquardt, published by The Smith-Pettit Foundation, Salt Lake City, 2012 http://www.fullerconsideration.com/PatriarchalBlessingRevelator/patriarchmeeting1958.php    Joseph Fielding Smith speaking Now here is a problem which to me is serious. A patriarch gave a blessing to an individual who had Negro blood in his veins and said you are of the House of Israel and entitled to all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. A Negro cannot hold the priesthood and not holding the priesthood they cannot, until the Lord removes the restriction, enter into the exaltation of the kingdom of God and that would not entitle them to all of the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That is a very serious matter and we should be extremely careful to know the Lord is speaking to us because Negroes cannot receive the fullness. A Negro may come into the Church and we can do more for him than any other church on the face of the earth. If he is baptized and is faithful and true, he can enter the celestial kingdom, but he does not get exaltation, but as I understand it, the Lord will, in due time, remove the restrictions. Not in this world but the time will come, if the Negro receives the gospel and is true to the end, he may go to the celestial kingdom and when the right time comes the restrictions will be removed and he may receive all of the blessings. Now the reason as stated by President Brigham Young and some of the other brethren that the Negro cannot receive the priesthood is two fold. One is their own fault because of their attitude in the spirit world. They were not valiant for some cause which the Lord does not explain, and they were barred from receiving the priesthood but they were not barred from birth into this world, and were not denied the right to have a body. If he is faithful in his second estate, the time will come when these restrictions will be removed.   ***** We have a young man who joined the Church and there is a question as to his lineage. Is there any reason why they couldn’t call upon the patriarch to see if he could give it to them, to see whether or not they have colored blood? A patriarch has the right to have inspiration in a case of that kind. In a case where there might be a person suspected of having Negro blood, but it is not certain, they could go to a patriarch. He has the right to inspiration. In such a case the bishop should have the right inspiration too. There are some cases where I suppose no one could tell but the Lord.     President James B. Faust gave 3/30/1980 BYU Talk on Patriarchal Blessings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZOCVWNqxqw  TIME STAMP 7.12-9.08   Elder Faust says that if not fulfilled in this life, will be fulfilled in the next THEN gives example of his father’s patriarchal blessing that said he would be blessed with “many beautiful daughters,” but had five sons. Moral—Even when the blessing doesn’t come to pass, it comes to pass. Heads I win, tails you lose.   TIME STAMP 17.29-18.08 LINEAGE Apologetic for why it is people in same family are of different tribes.     SPENCER W. KIMBALL ON REPETITIVE BLESSINGS     Digest of the minutes of the meeting of the patriarchs of the church with the General Authorities held in Barratt Hall, Salt Lake City, Utah, Saturday, October 11, 1958, at 8:00 A.M. From Later Patriarchal Blessings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pgs 559-563. Compiled by H. Michael Marquardt, published by The Smith-Pettit Foundation, Salt Lake City, 2012 http://www.fullerconsideration.com/PatriarchalBlessingRevelator/patriarchmeeting1958.php   You would do well, since you have no counselors, if you took two or three of your blessings occasionally to your stake president and say, “Would you kindly glance over these blessings to see if you have any suggestions for me.” Sometimes we get in ruts. Sometimes when we give so many blessings, we use the same phraseology over and over until it has little meaning. Each blessing is individual; each person only receives one blessing in their lifetime; therefore you don’t give them routine. Every blessing is very special to that individual.      Patriarch Robert Patterson—BYU—2000 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK6Ip8SMVl4 TIME STAMP 17.19-19.45 He goes over the main failsafes to patriarchal blessings; that just because a blessing isn’t stated, it doesn’t mean it won’t happen; and if a promise is stated, it doesn’t mean it will happen.   Talk about a rigged system! “Unknown to me . . .”  this from a patriarch!  LOL! Heads I win.  Tails you lose. The post Mormonism LIVE: 080: The Patriarchal Blessing Connection appeared first on Mormon Discussion by Bill Reel.

Bill & RFM take a look at Mormonism’s Holy Garments. We look at the history, doctrine, and disavowed theories and spiritual speculation around them. Are they a magical spiritual protection? Were they allowed to have their design changed? Must they be worn all day every day? What super secret sacred details will Bill and RFM uncover? The post Mormonism LIVE: 079: Mormonism’s History of The Holy Garments appeared first on Mormon Discussion by Bill Reel.

*NOTE* This episode is best viewed on youtube at https://youtu.be/6KJqj6C-D5E Bill Reel and Spencer Wright sit down to take a look at the Youtube Video “Ancient Temple Rites Restored” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u0l13wX57E ) to see if this apologetic perspective holds up. Did Joseph Smith make connections to the ancient world in ways that impose there must have been a divine connection or could the data be reconciled in other ways and perhaps even more rational ways. The post Mormon Discussion: 366: Ancient Temple Rites Restored & Critical Thinking Skills appeared first on Mormon Discussion by Bill Reel.