Funny when we're accused of not using "official" sources

by AngelCowgirl Nov 2011

I find this highly amusing, because in all my pages of typed quotes, only one thus far is from The Seer. The rest of them were pulled straight from Journal of Discourses and other sources of "official church doctrine". Besides, how can we be expected to believe and follow just some words from an apostle and not others?

Shouldn't true apostles be speaking truth all the time? And if he wasn't a true apostle, then whomever called him to be an apostle must not have been divinely inspired either...

Of course, the FAIR website isn't "official" either, so I guess - by their own logic - I cannot use this very information from them as reliable or honest.

And I wonder how long it will be before certain parts of those other "official" church sources will be either edited (aka censored) or denounced?

--------------------------
This is from the FAIRLDS website at http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Is_The%20Seer_a_Reliable_Source.html

"'The Seer:' Reliable Source?

by Lance Starr

Many anti-Mormons make extensive use of this publication in framing their accusations against the Church. Many members of the Church have not even heard of this publication, much less are familiar with its origins. The Seer was published in Washington, DC, by Orson Pratt, and he used the publication to provide a printed pulpit for his own ideas and pet speculations. It was never considered official LDS doctrine, nor was it ever published by or endorsed by the Church. Elder B.H. Roberts wrote the following in response to those in his day who were heralding the writings of The Seer as representative of official LDS doctrine:

The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work--the Seer--together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say: "But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."1

The next time you see an anti-Mormon argument, look carefully at what they cite as the sources, if any. There is a good chance their sources will be from The Seer. Interestingly, they almost never use official sources of LDS doctrine to level their accusations.

The reason, of course, is very simple. Anti-Mormons are not interested, for the most part, in addressing the real beliefs held by Mormons or the real doctrines embraced by the Church as contained in our official sources of doctrine. They choose instead to focus on carefully selected excerpts from obscure writings to provide the sole foundation for their accusations. Not only is this approach dishonest, it is outright deceitful. But such is their methodology and modus operandi. Obscure, repudiated writings from the fringe of an individual's personal speculations simply sound more damning. The fact that the Church publicly denounced them is simply a bothersome detail they correctly assume most people won't take the time to find out.

Footnotes
1B.H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.2, 294."

Truthseeker
Re: Funny when we're accused of not using "official" sources
I am almost certain that the only thing the church uses as official doctrine is the Handbook of Instructions. If a scripture from the OT, NT, BOM, D&C, PoGP disagrees with current guidelines, the current guidelines will win every argument.

The church retains the right to change doctrine based upon current revelation.

Hervey Willets

facts and logic are impregnable against a warm, fuzzy feeling in the bosom.

Truthseeker
Re:
that's for sure.
Nina
Re: Funny when we're accused of not using "official" sources
Isn't it interesting that B. H. Roberts manuscript, questioning the BoM wasn't allowed to be published by the Church? Luckiy, it did after he died. But we can be sure that other TBM's state, that this was 'his opinion'.
JoD3:360
Speaking when directed by 'the spirit' is usually problematic
The church teaches that when moved upon by the Holy Ghost, you speak with the authority of God. When you are a leader and given spokeman status (as in Pratts case) you run into the temptation to think that your every idea is a divine revelation. Couple that with the mantra that you must believe those who in the church lead and teach and you have a perfect recipe for all kinds of mayhem.

The Journal of Discourses was an official publication, and as we know is full of all manner or wickedness, hyperbole and delusional rantings. At the time the First Presidency said it was essential for our salvation to purchase and peruse the discourses as a faithful record of the word of God.

Toady, the church dismisses them as being of historical value only. Why? Because they are full of BS that embarrasses the church at a time when it seeks to be popular in the eyes of the world. Also, those who criticize the church use the prophets words to make their case.

And most importantly, people lose their testimonies of the church when they read for themselves what their prophets of God have so recklessly thrown forth as the Word of God.

Therefore it is important to limit the influence of documents like The Seer, and The Journal of Discourses, Doctrines of Salvation and lately, Mormon Doctrine. It is doubly imperitive to teach the membership of today that they should look only to todays leaders and read only their words and those past teachings that they currently approve.

To me that is significant. If prophets words need to be discarded in order to protect the church, then we must refuse to accept todays prophets who claim a direct line of divine authority from them. Otherwise, we run the ruisk of teaching our children false doctrine just like our grandparents and parents taught us.

caedmon
Re: Funny when we're accused of not using "official" sources
There are no "official" sources. What was official yesterday, is no longer official today. What is official today, will no longer be official tomorrow.

The only unchanging doctrine in Mormonism is complete, unquestioning obedience to TODAY'S church leaders. It doesn't matter of they contradict past teachings/leaders. It doesn't matter that they contradict existing scripture. It doesn't matter if they contradict each other. It ONLY matters that you obey.

AngelCowgirl
Re: Funny when we're accused of not using "official" sources
Excellent points, all! Wow, how I have missed good sound reasoning...
AngelCowgirl
Re: Funny when we're accused of not using "official" sources
Hmmm, the hypocrisy continues to astound me.

Some TBMs claim that mere counsel doesn’t count as official doctrine or scripture unless the prophet says it is a commandment. But according to D&C 21:4-5:
“Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.”

Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (Journal of Discourses, 13:95.)

SO... everything a prophet says is to be interpreted as scripture. Therefore, everything stated or written by prophets is FAIR GAME AS AN OFFICIAL SOURCE.

Faithful
Re: Funny when we're accused of not using "official" sources
Are all you guys Christian and Claim Prophets are perfect?

kolobian
Re: Funny when we're accused of not using "official" sources
Define perfect.

I would say that a man who holds the office of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and REALLY was a prophet, seer, & revelator; and REALLY spoke with god face-to-face; and REALLY had the keys of the kingdom... probably wouldn't mix up Elohim and Michael and spend his entire life praying to and worshiping Adam.

And I wouldn't expect a church who believes that this same man (Brigham Young) who spent his life worshiping the wrong god and teaching others to do the same is still going to be exalted and keep his harem of wives to send out teenagers to tell other folks that they're worshiping the wrong god and need to repent.

Something about rocks and glass houses, y'know?

Cheryl
I never understood this quirky idea about "official sources."
Keeping an open mind and doing honest research means using all reputable sources possible, not just the tightly controlled ones with predetermined conclusions.

No one could ever get away with that narrow minded thinking in a credible university class.

ronas
Re: Funny when we're accused of not using "official" sources
No they don't need to be perfect but they shouldn't be as bat-@#$%& crazy as Brian David Mitchell either. (The kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart - you should read the public court case document sometime - the parallels between his revelations and JS are pretty scary - the big difference was Brian only got one person to believe him.)

To dismiss the fact that JS got less than 10% of his prophecies right and that Brigham Young made up all kinds of doctrine that the church refutes today and taught it in general conference and demoted Orsen Pratt who would have been the 3rd prophet because he didn't agree is quite a stretch to put down to "well prophets aren't perfect."

To excuse JS for "pulling a David" and sending other women's husband's out on missions and then marrying their wives while they are away is pretty hard to put down to "well prophets aren't perfect."

And then there are thousands and thousands more examples. Eventually it gets to the point where you realize all prophet means is "the guy in charge".

steve benson
Mormons repudiate all kinds of official positions when they are inconvenient or embarrassing. In fact, to have the LDS Church repudiate a source is a . . . .
. . . probable indictator that it's a legitimate source.

I am amazed at the lock-headed mentality of apologists.

They couldn't think outside the box, even if there was no box.

ronas
Re: Funny when we're accused of not using "official" sources
BTW no I am not Christian. I absolutely agree that the Mormon scam is just an extension of the Christian scam which is just an extension of the Jewish scam.

AngelCowgirl
Re: Funny when we're accused of not using "official" sources
This is an old thread, guys... "Faithful" just wanted to accuse us of unfairly judging the prophets by expecting them to be perfect (which isn't what I said, of course, but what can you expect from a brainwashed Morgbot who only thinks what they are told to?)

jpt
It's always the members fault.
I suppose there are official church sources, but it's hard to tell what is, and what isn't official at the time.

Then there's the "unwritten order of things," (talk by BKP) which we are expected to know and follow, yet we will later be blamed for following because it wasn't from an official church source.

Nailing jello, methinks.

steve benson
When Mormon prophets utter bogus prophesies, make absurd and disproveable claims and otherwise show their bigotry and stupidity, then they are not perfect or prophets . . .
Which means that Mormon prophets have never been prophets.
mia
Re: Funny when we're accused of not using "official" sources
The head cronies of the church would re-write the dictionary if they could. They would re-define annoying words like "official" and "research". And probably a whole string of others if I thought about it in depth.

They are having a huge word problem these days. They made the mistake of encouraging members to get an education. Now they're in the position of trying to finesse the english language to fit all of the theology and teachings that sound, and are, plain crazy!

I'm sure they rue the day they encouraged the historians to write church history. They didn't count on them finding and telling the truth. Now they really have to dress up the pig. Changing lipstick shades isn't doing the job.

As I see it,their big problem is and will continue to be the people who want to really get down and learn their religion. Once these diligent members know the truth they can't un-know it.

You can't un-know the truth. Lies and half truths that have been taught to you since birth can be found out and un-known. That is why members have to so diligently protect their testimonies. It's because they aren't true, and can be easily undone. One chapter in a well documented history book can take a member out of the church in a single afternoon.

"Recovery from Mormonism - www.exmormon.org"