Episode 184: A Closer Look at “Anti-Mormon” Statements

Yeah, some general authorities disagree with saying its doctrinal until it is actually attached to the D&C. But such a public statement, signed by all living apostles, only needs the robotic support of members in a general conference to add it to D&C, which can happen any time they want it too since all the apostles signed it.

It seems to be a generational thing where we add things to D&C after some time has passed, like sec 118 unless its a politically difficult issue like black and the priesthood. 

Heather, I think you might be referring to Packer’s talk, where he said the following:

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it.

And then the last line was revised for the printed version, to read:

It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow

So it was changed from a “revelation” to a mere “guide”.

John is right! I was baptised 14 yrs ago and was always taught that even by the missionaries!! This is only an add on revelation that seems to be very safe…JS had the guts to lay it all out, I don’t know why the current leaders don’t act or do that…

 Again gospel principles is a manual for church members. proclamation on family is directed to the world and teaches new doctrine or doctrine which wasn’t universally agreed on by all church leaders.

“a source for your “canonized” teaching of the existence of a “God Mother.”"

The Family: A Proclamation to the World! plus reading the text one can conclude that ‘God’ refers to our heavently parents since each is in their image, male and female, reafirming what is in genesis.

Hinckley downplayed its role to avoid controversy but the text is clear, and the document is signed by all then living apostles…you can’t get much more canonized than that unless its added as another appendix to D&C.

I really really want for active members to start thinking of Boyd K Packer’s statement ‘Some things that are true are not very useful’ when they’re in an interview being asked about masturbation.  

 Yes, you are confused.

It didn’t all finish with Smith, section 138 is a good example as are the two declarations. the one on polygamy ending and how it came about is a good example of how the Lord works and shows he isn’t a dictator.

but the church doesn’t have a copyright over inspired thought. it only has a copyright over the ordinances needed to entre the celestial kingdom and the priesthood. others may well have inspiried thoughts from god.

ok, never mind.

I agree that the twofold salvation model advocated by Joseph Fielding Smith you quote above is an accurate statement of Mormon doctrine and common LDS belief. This is all just doctrinal speculation on my part. I have no idea how it all works…which is one reason I’m in the position I’m in now.

I still think John raises an interesting point, one I had never considered: one of those “laws and ordinances of the gospel” is repentance, which involves praying to the father (we always pray to the father) and asking for forgiveness for our sins. The question then is who provides us the forgiveness we seek? Jesus, who performed the atonement, or the father, who we ask forgiveness of?

Perhaps a hypothetical will help illustrate this problem: suppose I steal a donut. I then feel remorse, ask the baker for forgiveness, make restitution, promise never to do it again, and pray to the father to please forgive me for that sin. Does the father, upon hearing my prayer, turn to Jesus and say “Ipse just repented of stealing a donut. Forgive him please.” Or, is it the other way around: “Jesus, Ipse just asked me for forgiveness for stealing a donut. Should I forgive him?” “Yes father. Ipse has repented, and he has been baptized and confirmed, so my atonement covers him.” Whereupon, the father forgives my sin. In either scenario, the father cannot forgive my sin without Jesus’ approval. Is this the way it works? If so, how is the father omnipotent if he is unable to forgive sins himself?

Mainstream Christians get around this problem with the Trinity: Christians pray to, and receive forgiveness from, the same god who atoned for their sins. I suppose Mormons resolve this problem through having the father and Jesus occupying different divine stewardships, which Darkmatter alludes to above. But if the father is supreme, why can’t he forgive sins whether Jesus approves or not?

Interestingly, Jesus asked the father to forgive the people who crucified him: “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Luke 23:34. This implies that Jesus “pleads our case” to the father, who then does the ultimate forgiving. Is this how it works for us?

The Nephites would possibly be an ethnicity if they were an historic people and if, as claimed, they came to an empty land and existed for many hundreds of years without outside influence. Of course, they would have to develop cultural and traditional differences from their supposed parent population that were distinct from those of the originating group (which the BoM claims they did not do entirely). The DNA evidence (and combined weight of lack of physical support for the claims in the BoM) dispute the claim that they ever existed so the whole point is moot.

It’s not my ethnic and isolation argument – it’s an anthropological definition which is not universally accepted but has strong support within the discipline. And yes, IF Mormons increase their cultural isolation, IF they begin to increase (or sustain) their numbers almost entirely through inter-breeding with little to no contribution from proselytized new members, then in a few thousand years or so they could be considered an ethnicity. They have the seeds of it, and BY was on his way to establishing it, but for a number of reasons it’s extremely unlikely that it will happen.

I agree with what you are saying about the problem with the term ‘race’ – that it can be used for good or ill, and often for ill (as the nazis). However, that doesn’t change the fact that there is a very strong cultural and genetic component to Judaism which is outside of, and even pre-dates the establishment of the religion. While I respect your late father-in-law’s opinion, it does not carry any more weight than the opinion of, for example, my Jewish atheist friend who has no religious belief at all yet strongly identifies as a Jew because that is her cultural and family heritage. She is Jewish.

As I said, I don’t like the term race; I don’t use it. It’s a woolly term that has no real meaning – we don’t talk about animals as having races for example. But there are distinctive populations who are identifiable by multiple factors – cultural, traditional, historic, genetic etc – and those populations can be considered ethnicities. Denying this loses the richness and the understanding that comes from celebrating our many differences. It also ignores the history that lies behind these ethnicities that explains how and why they developed, and ignoring the history of a people marginalizes and trivializes them.