From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: AR ANSWERING ------------------> Willard I
Date: 20 Dec 92 05:36:43 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Article 42184 of talk.religion.misc:
>From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Summary: Exactly what was Brigham Young's view of scripture?
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:04:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.000221.14664@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:

>>My argument was that Bringham Young was a prophet ansd president
>>which gives him the big three titles. Yet nothing he wrote was ever
>>considered scripture, yuet he himself thought much of his words
>>were scripture:-) Some prophet. The net lds downplay most of his
>>bizarre statements hiding behind the noninfallible veil. Some prophets.
>
>It has been my experience that most anti-Mormons would prefer a extremely
>liberal criteria for determining what is and is not official Mormon doctr
>Generally that criteria would state that any precept taught by an LDS Gen
>Authority that is published and not censored by the LDS Church is Mormon
>Doctrine.  For example, anti-Mormons assert that Brigham Young repeatedly
>made statements to the effect that everything that he said could be
>considered scripture. For example:
>
>  I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men,
>   that they may not call Scripture. (JD 13:95)
>
>  I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime,
>  perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything
>   of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations - that
>  Brigham Young has said "when he sends forth his discourses to the world
>   they may call them Scripture." I say now, when they are copied and
>  approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this bible, and
>  if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind
>   of God ...  (JD 13:264)
>
>Since Brigham Young called every sermon that he delivered, corrected, and
>permitted to be published scripture, then anti-Mormons conclude that such
>sermons should be considered official doctrine of the LDS Church.
>
>An objective look at Brigham Young's writings and actions will demonstrat
>that he did not claim for himself or for things that he taught the sense
>nerrancy that the anti-Mormons attribute to him.
>
>Brigham Young's view of what constituted scripture seems to be quite
>different from the anti-Mormons who quote him. When Brigham Young called
>sermons scripture, he was NOT claiming that they were the inerrant word o
>God. Neither did Brigham Young define scripture as being word for word, t
>word of God.  To the broad assertion that every word within the covers of
>Bible was the inerrant word of God, Brigham Young once stated:
>
>  I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of go
>  men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words o
>  bad angels and the words of the devil; and also the words uttered by t
>  ass when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words ofe
>  Bible are just what they are. (JD 13:235)
>
>In addition, Brigham Young explicitly stated, on a number of occasions, t
>he was quite capable of making doctrinal errors even in public:
>
>  ... it is not the place for any person to correct any person who is
>  superior to them but ask the Father in the name of Jesus to bind him up
>  from speaking false principles I have know many times I have preached
>  but I asked the Father in the name of Jesus to take it from the minds
>  the people and I believe he always did drop the vail over it let your
>  faith be for that man but do not oppose and get up a division between
>  ... (Uncorrected minutes by Thomas Bullock, May 8, 1854, "Historical
>  Documents of the Church," Cited in "Mormon Miscellaneous Note Cards,"
>  Number 187)
>
>In conclusion, Brigham Young did not claimed for himself or his views the
>sense of inerrancy that the anti-Mormons wish to attribute to him. Neithe
>did Brigham Young believe that all his published sermons were pronounceme
>of official church doctrine. Therefore, based simply on Brigham Young's p
>of view, the extremely liberal criteria suggested by the anti-Mormon posi
>fails.
>
>There is yet another reason why the anti-Mormon criteria makes very littl
>sense.  Mormon General Authorities have disagreed publically about many
>different things. For example, if the anti-Mormon criteria is followed th
>Mormons, such as myself would have to ask, "What exactly is the Church's
>stand on evolution?"  Joseph Fielding Smith, Boyd K. Packer, and many ot
>G.A.'s have expressed their opposition to evolution. Other equally
>influential General Authorities, such as James E. Talmage, John A. Widsto
>and B.H. Roberts, have expressed support for evolutionary concepts.
>
>Such disagreements are not restricted to evolution. On many other topics,
>there have been an entire spectrium of responses offered  by various Chur
>Leaders. Such disagreements have been manifest over such areas as Eternal
>Progression, what is very specifically meant by the term "saved," what
>happens to the Sons of Perdition, Adam, the Sinful Nature of Man, etc. Ev
>over whom the term "Jehovah" applied.  Since there are disagreements over
>most of these topics, simply using published statements of General Author
>is NOT an intelligent way of determining offical church doctrine.
>
>If an anti-Mormon tries to wiggle out of this problem by saying, "Well,
>that's your problem." My response is quite sim

Your statements are amazing.  During the time of Brigham Young several
individuals considered his words so important that they DIED to show
their acceptance of this teachings.  Brigham SUPPORTED their deaths
showing his approval.  Joseph Smith said you either accept what he teaches
or you can lump it.  According to Mormonism Joseph Smith sealed his beliefs
by dieing for them.  It is ANTI-intelligent to take a current culture and
and beliefs and apply them to a culture and time in history.  To be
intelligent you MUST take the events of the time and apply those events
to what was said to arrive a correct answer.
Your current attempt to defend Brigham, in Brigham's time would have cost
your dearly, ex-communication at the very least.

Mormons use published statements of General Authorities on a regualar bases,
however, the instant someone outside the church applies the same practice
you first classify him as "anti-Mormon", then try to explain why this is
practice is wrong.  If I quote, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, who quotes
Brigham Young, you attack me by saying I'm taking it out of context or
that it is not church doctrine.  Yet, NOT ONCE have you explained why or
how you know MORE about Mormonism than an Apostle, who had constant contact
with the living prophet.

It is time for you to throw away your double standard and face the facts.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc