Biblical and historical reasons why Mitt Romney is not a Christian

[Jill]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

All from the Journal of Discourses--which you know was not written by Brigham Young, right? Your argument becomes circular if you rely on the Journal of Discourses to prove the validity of the Journal of Discourses as scripture. Clearly, one can observe that we do not use the Journal of Discourses as our scripture and that makes the point alone.

"In having in your library the 26 volumes of the 'Journals of Discourses' you have a library containing the sermons of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church. If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about."--Axel Andresen, ***istant manager of Deseret Book, 1963


"The Journal of Discourses is listed as an official publication of the LDS Church in the following books:

Essentials in Church History, by Joseph Fielding Smith, published by the LDS Church, p. 674.
Deseret News 1989-90 Church Almanac, p. 188, published by a company owned by LDS Church.

The Journal of Discourses is quoted repeatedly in LDS publications and in LDS conference reports. See for example, Doctrines of the Gospel, Student Manual, Religion 231 and 232, published by the LDS Church Educational System, 1986, p.83. See also Ensign Magazine (official publication of the LDS Church) May 1996, Conference talk by James E. Faust, of the First Presidency, p.7.

It is inconsistent of the Mormons to question the accuracy of the Journal of Discourses while the LDS leaders continue to quote from it. They never follow their quote with a disclaimer about the accuracy of the account. This issue only comes up when someone outside of Mormonism quotes something from their leaders that they are embarr***ed about. It is a double standard." www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm
(emphasis added)

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Jill

"In having in your library the 26 volumes of the 'Journals of Discourses' you have a library containing the sermons of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church. If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about."--Axel Andresen, the ***istant manager of Deseret Book, 1963


"The Journal of Discourses is listed as an official publication of the LDS Church in the following books:

Essentials in Church History, by Joseph Fielding Smith, published by the LDS Church, p. 674.
Deseret News 1989-90 Church Almanac, p. 188, published by a company owned by LDS Church.

The Journal of Discourses is quoted repeatedly in LDS publications and in LDS conference reports. See for example, Doctrines of the Gospel, Student Manual, Religion 231 and 232, published by the LDS Church Educational System, 1986, p.83. See also Ensign Magazine (official publication of the LDS Church) May 1996, Conference talk by James E. Faust, of the First Presidency, p.7.

It is inconsistent of the Mormons to question the accuracy of the Journal of Discourses while the LDS leaders continue to quote from it. They never follow their quote with a disclaimer about the accuracy of the account. This issue only comes up when someone outside of Mormonism quotes something from their leaders that they are embarr***ed about. It is a double standard." www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm
(emphasis added)

Just a small comment on this.

The leadership, generally speaking, has the discretion to pick and choose from the Journals, what is compatible with LDS doctrine (found in scripture). I know that anyone in leadership would tell you, flatly, that not everything in the JofD is current LDS teaching/thinking/doctrine. Some of it is opinon and some of it just plain wrong (like the Adam God theory).

The critics, on the other hand, seem to take what they can find that is the most outrageously controversial and try to p*** it off as current belief and teachings of the church. That is deceptive, don't you think?

[Jill]

Originally Posted by Libby

Just a small comment on this.

The leadership, generally speaking, has the discretion to pick and choose from the Journals, what is compatible with LDS doctrine (found in scripture). I know that anyone in leadership would tell you, flatly, that not everything in the JofD is current LDS teaching/thinking/doctrine. Some of it is opinon and some of it just plain wrong (like the Adam God theory).

The critics, on the other hand, seem to take what they can find that is the most outrageously controversial and try to p*** it off as current belief and teachings of the church. That is deceptive, don't you think?

I think if Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young were alive today, LDS Leaders would not "pick and choose" anything.

It's a double standard to say that some writings are A-Okay but the embarr***ing ones are not, Libby. Last time I checked, it wasn't the critics who wrote all those outrageous, controversial things.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Jill

I think if Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young were alive today, LDS Leaders would not "pick and choose" anything.

It's a double standard to say that some writings are A-Okay but the embarr***ing ones are not, Libby. Last time I checked, it wasn't the critics who wrote all those outrageous, controversial things.

Past Christians of all faiths have said some very embarr***ing things. Cultures were different back then and I don't think you would want to lay claim to every single word the Reformers espoused, either.

Spirituality is an ever evolving process (for all of us). It is not fair to claim that people (of any religion) are following or believe things, said by leaders in the past, that they simply do not believe or consider untrue. Church leaders, of the past, are often not representative of religion, today (not yours or LDS or anyone else's). Not to say there are not some things that are still considered doctrine and wise, but certainly not everything or anything one wants to pick and choose, to sensationalize.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Libby

Past Christians of all faiths have said some very embarr***ing things. Cultures were different back then and I don't think you would want to lay claim to every single word the Reformers espoused, either.

Spirituality is an ever evolving process (for all of us). It is not fair to claim that people (of any religion) are following or believe things, said by leaders in the past, that they simply do not believe or consider untrue. Church leaders, of the past, are often not representative of religion, today (not yours or LDS or anyone else's). Not to say there are not some things that are still considered doctrine and wise, but certainly not everything or anything one wants to pick and choose, to sensationalize.

Libby,
If past leaders made foolish statements and now the members of that faith do not consider those statements to be true, then what does it say for that religion? The only conclusion that any intelligent person can honestly come up with is this, "my religion MUST be false if that is what my past Prophet preached and believed." There is only ONE standard that the world can believe in and that is the Bible, which is God's Word! Christians have not changed in how they are to gain salvation. It has remained the same for centuries where Mormonism has constantly changed. Is this the restored church that JS started when being told by god that it was necessary and JS was the man of the hour? Seems it isn't anymore, for it has morphed into something else.

[Jill]

Originally Posted by Libby

Past Christians of all faiths have said some very embarr***ing things. Cultures were different back then and I don't think you would want to lay claim to every single word the Reformers espoused, either.

Spirituality is an ever evolving process (for all of us). It is not fair to claim that people (of any religion) are following or believe things, said by leaders in the past, that they simply do not believe or consider untrue. Church leaders, of the past, are often not representative of religion, today (not yours or LDS or anyone else's). Not to say there are not some things that are still considered doctrine and wise, but certainly not everything or anything one wants to pick and choose, to sensationalize.

When Mormon leaders call themselves "prophets" and claim to speak in the name of Almighty God, they better be held accountable for ALL their embarr***ing, intolerant, and racist comments. This applies to anyone who thinks they have a "special" message from God.

"Reformers" never claimed to be prophets--they didn't claim to speak for God; they didn't create their own version of the Bible, erase or edit His Word, and add phases like "white and delightsome." Big difference there, Libby.

The very big problem with "ever evolving" faith is that it sounds an awful lot like, "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
2 Tim 3:7

[Libby]

When Mormon leaders call themselves "prophets" and claim to speak in the name of Almighty God, they better be held accountable for ALL their embarr***ing, intolerant, and racist comments.

I don't think so, since LDS prophets never claimed to speak for God 24/7. Not everything they spoke was revelation; Joseph made that clear.

Plus, I think people like John Calvin were pretty sure that they were being inspired by God, even though they didn't call themselves prophets. Many people, even today, believe that Calvin was inspired in his interpretation of the Bible. Same for Luther and Wesley and many others. My great great Grandfather was a follower of John Wesley, and he sure did believe he was inspired by God.

There is clearly a double standard being employed by critics of the LDS Church.

[Decalogue]

Originally Posted by Libby

I don't think so, since LDS prophets never claimed to speak for God 24/7. Not everything they spoke was revelation; Joseph made that clear.

Plus, I think people like John Calvin were pretty sure that they were being inspired by God, even though they didn't call themselves prophets. Many people, even today, believe that Calvin was inspired in his interpretation of the Bible. Same for Luther and Wesley and many others. My great great Grandfather was a follower of John Wesley, and he sure did believe he was inspired by God.

There is clearly a double standard being employed by critics of the LDS Church.

Libby : --- Hello. Not trying to be mean or hurt your feelings , but ... to put it plainly : You are wrong !

From Joseph Smith to Brigham Young ( and the Missouri-based Mormons , and most of the Mormon-splinter groups ,,, ) Mormons have said that the President of the L.D.S. group is a "Living Prophet". Matter o' fact ... in about the 1970's the M.M.s would come door-to-door and that was their standard question on the doorstep : ..." If there was a Prophet from God alive on the earth , wouldn't you want to know what he has to say ?..." If the person at the house would say "Yes I would." Then the M.M.s would schedule a meeting for later.

Now --- as to you mentioning John Calvin , Martin Luther , and John Wesley ...

( I think in Mystery novels/stories what you did is called a "red Herring"... )

.... Neither of those three gents EVER claimed to be a Prophet ! None , nein , zip , nada , non , no , zero , goose eggs !
Never did they claim "Prpphet" status , nor did the people in the congregations / pews of the Churches/Chapels they taught & preached at ever thought those guys were "prophets"... and those 3 guys would have been if anyone said that about them.

I've read and listened to several Biographies of those gents , and they did not believe that there are modern-day prophets around . The only "prophets" that Calvin , Luther & Wesley were interested in were REAL prophets such as Isaiah , Jeremiah , Amos , Malachi , Joel , Hosea , Micah , and those gents found in the Hebrew Bible ( O.T. ) , the kind of prophets who spoke FOR God Almighty , and warned the people of sin , and falling away from God their maker. Real prophets make true prophecies.

Now --- howzabout we get back to the THREAD TOPIC ? ! ?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Decalogue

Libby : --- Hello. Not trying to be mean or hurt your feelings , but ... to put it plainly : You are wrong !

From Joseph Smith to Brigham Young ( and the Missouri-based Mormons , and most of the Mormon-splinter groups ,,, ) Mormons have said that the President of the L.D.S. group is a "Living Prophet". Matter o' fact ... in about the 1970's the M.M.s would come door-to-door and that was their standard question on the doorstep : ..." If there was a Prophet from God alive on the earth , wouldn't you want to know what he has to say ?..." If the person at the house would say "Yes I would." Then the M.M.s would schedule a meeting for later.

Now --- as to you mentioning John Calvin , Martin Luther , and John Wesley ...

( I think in Mystery novels/stories what you did is called a "red Herring"... )

.... Neither of those three gents EVER claimed to be a Prophet ! None , nein , zip , nada , non , no , zero , goose eggs ! Never did they , or the people in the congregations / pews of the Churches/Chapels they taught & preached at ever think those guys were "prophets"... and those 3 guys would have been if anyone said that about them.

I've read and listened to several Biographies of those gents , and they did not believe that there are modern-day prophets around . The only "prophets" that Calvin , Luther & Wesley were interested in were REAL prophets such as Isaiah , Jeremiah , Amos , Malachi , Joel , Hosea , Micah , and those gents found in the Hebrew Bible ( O.T. ) , the kind of prophets who spoke FOR God Almighty , and warned the people of sin , and falling away from God their maker. Real prophets make true prophecies.

Now --- howzabout we get back to the THREAD TOPIC ? ! ?

No, I am not wrong, nor did I claim that Calvin and other Church Fathers were "prophets". I think I said, specifically, that they were not. But, that doesn't keep people from reading and revering and teaching and believing their words, in regards to interpretations of the Bible. I have two large volumes of Calvin's works (The Ins***utes) that I read and studied, when I was interested in the Calvinist perspective and I know many, many Calvinists who study those books like they study the Bible. There are a gazillion books and cl***es on the subject of Calvinism...I have a small library of Calvinist books. So, you may not have been a "prophet", but he was and IS extremely influential, even to this day, in Reformed Christian circles. In the Reformed Church I attended, for two years, Calvin's writings were quoted just as often, if not moreso, as Joseph Smith is quoted in Gospel Doctrine cl***. Our Minister fairly often included a quote from Calvin, even in his main sermon.

The point is, Protestant Christianity has a "church history", as well, and it is not all neat and tidy (there are some terrible atrocities in the history of the Protestant Church), just as there are some potentially embarr***ing things in LDS church history. I think there are some pretty terrible atrocities in the Old Testament, plus very imperfect prophets, as well. Do those things make your church untrue? Does it make your church a "cult"?

And I am on topic. The topic, as always, on this board is "Why I am a Christian, but you are not".

[theway]

Originally Posted by Decalogue

Now --- as to you mentioning John Calvin , Martin Luther , and John Wesley ...

( I think in Mystery novels/stories what you did is called a "red Herring"... )

.... Neither of those three gents EVER claimed to be a Prophet ! None , nein , zip , nada , non , no , zero , goose eggs ! Never did they , or the people in the congregations / pews of the Churches/Chapels they taught & preached at ever think those guys were "prophets"...

Yes.... we know. It has been made abundantly clear to us by critics here, that the founders of Protestantism were not men called of God, received no revelations, and were uninspired; I get that. I'm just not sure how that helps your case any?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by theway

Yes.... we know. It has been made abundantly clear to us by critics here, that the founders of Protestantism were not men called of God, received no revelations, and were uninspired; I get that. I'm just not sure how that helps your case any?

Because early and late Christian writings outside the Bible are not scripture.

Now let me ask you do you stand by your "inspired" leaders?

Adam God?

Blood atonement?

The apostles killed Judas by kicking him to death?

Gold grows like the hair on your head?

Jesus was conceived by "natural action"?

On and on and on. . .