21 Comments

Mormon prophet lends credibility to a wild claim.

Mormonism is known for its tall tales: Claims of Quaker-like people living on the moon, people living on the sun, God living on the planet Kolob, spiritual vegetables, black skin being a sign that you’re cursed of God, or Joseph Smith’s claim that he was visited by two members of the Trinity in the secluded woods (depending, of course, on which version of his vision you actually believe).  

Then there’s this doosey from Spencer W. Kimball, the twelfth president, prophet, seer, and revelator of the Mormon church writing in his book The Miracle of Forgiveness (pages 127-128) about an encounter a fellow Mormon had with a still-living biblical character.

Meet 6,000+ year-old Cain:

On the sad character Cain, an interesting story comes to us from Lycurgus A. Wilson’s book on the life of David W. Patten. From the book I quote an extract from a letter by Abraham O. Smoot giving his recollection of David Patten’s account of meeting “a very remarkable person who had represented himself as being Cain.”

“‘As I was riding along the road on my mule I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me—. His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle. He wore no clothing, but was covered with hair. His skin was very dark. I asked him where he dwelt and he replied that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the earth and traveled to and fro. He said he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men. About the time he expressed himself thus, I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence, and he immediately departed out of my sight . . . .”

21 comments on “Mormon prophet lends credibility to a wild claim.

  1. I can more easily believe the book Inkheart to be real than what the Mormons make up.

  2. Hey, if I do that will the prosperity preachers go away?

  3. He said he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men.

    Sooooooo… Mormons believe Cain became a lawyer?

  4. It is rather fun when people take obscure stories and quotes and try to pass them off as actual LDS doctrine and theology. As it always ends up they put their foot in it and end up looking rather silly to anyone who actually knows the doctrine and Theology.
    The real shame is that it is simply a waste of time as no self-respecting person would really care enough to take the time to right about such meaningless prattle. Such a pity.

  5. shematwater,

    Do you mean that it was a shame for Mormons to have written about this “meaningless prattle” in the first place (meeting Cain on the road, Kolob, Quakers on the moon, men on the sun, spiritual vegetables, black skin representing God’s curse, Joseph Smith, Jr.’s various and conflicting First Vision accounts, etc.), or that it’s a shame that the Pilgrim wrote about it?

    If it’s the former, then I certainly agree with you.

    In Christ,
    CD

  6. CORAM

    I meant the latter, but than you knew that is what I meant.

    Actually nothing that the Pilgrim wrote in this little article is accurate to LDS doctrine, which makes the continual harping on it meaningless (continual because almost everyone who posts blogs against the LDS church has made some kind of comment on these topics). That was my point.

  7. shematwater,

    The One true and living God of the Holy Bible is a God of truth, and His people are to be people of the truth. I don’t agree that it’s meaningless to point out that multiple representatives and authorities of LDS church have a verifiable track record of playing fast and loose with the truth.

    In fact many of the folks the Pilgrim cites are the same kind of people whom you claim your god has ordained to operate his “house” when you said “I have explained why. God’s house (or church) is a house of order (D&C 132: 8). As he is the same yesterday, today and forever he will always operate under this principle.”. I guess this only applies when they say and do things that you approve of, but does not apply when they say and do things that you do not approve of. That seems awfully convenient.

    In Christ,
    CD

  8. Dear shemwater,

    You said:

    “. . . nothing that the Pilgrim wrote in this little article is accurate to LDS doctrine . . .”

    and you also said:

    “It is rather fun when people take obscure stories and quotes and try to pass them off as actual LDS doctrine and theology. As it always ends up they put their foot in it and end up looking rather silly to anyone who actually knows the doctrine and Theology.”

    True, this piece about big, tall, black, naked, hairy Cain still roaming on earth is not found in any one of the 4 books Mormonism considers doctrine. However, what you failed to realize was that this illustration that prophet, seer, and revelator of the LDS church, Spencer W. Kimball, cited was actually in support of Mormon theology/doctrine.

    He even quotes Joseph Smith in the same section of this chapter to further his theology/doctrine. I presume you have a copy of Kimball’s book The Miracle of Forgiveness, so you can see for yourself that the reason he mentioned the whole crazy Cain story was to further his Mormon theology/doctrine.

    Kimball made no mention, allusion or assertion that the story was outlandish or bogus, so by citing it in support of the theology/doctrine he was trying to espouse in his book, he lent credibility to the story (hence the name of this post) and since he was a prophet speaking for Mormonism’s god and the Mormon church, no doubt many Mormons who have read his book have believed this. The Mormon prophet said it, and thus, many believed it, and maybe, just maybe, some still do. You shouldn’t be so quick to dash, diminish, and minimize their trust and belief in what the 12th prophet said just because now current LDS apologists consider it “obscure.”

    So you see, when your own prophet took an “obscure” story and quote, and tried to pass it off as a support pillar for “accurate” LDS doctrine, it is he that put his foot in his mouth and it is he, those who believed the story, and those who defend it, that end up looking rather silly to those who actually know the true, unrevised doctrine and theology of historic Mormonism.

  9. CORAM

    It applies to everything they say, as long as you understand their meaning. It does not apply to the misrepresentations that people of no understanding give to their words.

    PILGRIM

    Actually, I do not have a copy, though I am familiar with the story and have read the book.
    The point is that he does not claim this to be Cain, only that the figure made such a claim. President Kimball was relating what he called “an interesting story,” never once putting it forth as fact. It is an interesting story, and it does illustrate the fate of murderers, as was his intention. However, it does not mean that President Kimball taught that Cain is still walking the Earth. It means that in the spirit of teaching he is relating a story, and that is all.

    I have no doubt that many people use this in support of their belief that Cain in still wondering around, and maybe this indicates a certain carelessness on the part of President Kimball. However, it does not accurately portray LDS theology or the words of President Kimball, and is thus a meaningless attempt to mock the faith of others.

  10. Dear Shem:

    Firstly, I’d like to correct a statement you made in your last comment in which you suggested this post was a “meaningless attempt to mock the faith of others.” I know that there are many out there who mock Mormonism and enjoy making fun of it. I’ve even seen them from time to time here. For example, they like to use the word “Moron” in place of “Mormon” and somehow think that that’s not only funny, but novel (like they’re the first one to come up with it). Those kinds of comments are usually deleted.

    My purpose for posting this was not in mockery (for woe is me to mock anyone who’s following after a false Christ, save the grace and sovereignty of God I would be there too). My purpose for publishing this post was to present the absurdity of the claims Mormonism’s mouthpieces for God have made.

    Let’s be honest here. I do not expect to say anything that’s going to jar you from your beliefs (and I’m confident you believe likewise). You’re an LDS apologist that scours the blogosphere offering your defense of Mormonism wherever opportunity presents itself. I understand that. I also understand that even the rank and file Mormon or JW or Catholic–once in their respective organization–are very difficult to awaken to the truth. Instead, I look at what I/we do here as an inoculation. If we can provide enough information about the truth of Mormonism, the average prudent and reasonable individual will stay far away and not get caught up in the deception and thus, not shipwreck their souls.

    By showing what a prophet of your church has lent credibility to is not mockery. He said it. It’s in his book. LDS has not (as far as I know) renounced it.

    We may disagree about this stuff, but please do not judge the intentions and motivations of my heart. I do not make fun of president Kimball, but his writing is not beyond being exposed and scrutinized.

    Now, in your last comment you said:

    “President Kimball was relating what he called ‘an interesting story,’ never once putting it forth as fact.”

    The mere fact that Kimball, the president, prophet, seer, and revelator of the Mormon church took the time to pen this “story” in his book, and in order to further the point he was trying to make on murderers having no forgiveness, suggests that he didn’t dismiss the “story” as unfactual, thus lending credibility to the “story.”

    You also said:

    “I have no doubt that many people use this in support of their belief that Cain in still wondering around, and maybe this indicates a certain carelessness on the part of President Kimball. However, it does not accurately portray LDS theology or the words of President Kimball . . .”

    You’re right. And I never said that, in and of itself, the eternal roaming of Cain on earth is an LDS doctrine, but when it comes from the mouth of an LDS president, prophet, seer, and revelator, it is often taken as doctrine by those who follow the prophets and it lends much credibility to the “story.” It also showed that these wild claims are fairly common in Mormon history (I cited a few others in the opening paragraph of this post).

    I understand that Kimball was illustrating the fate of murderers, but this illustration, and his teaching on the fate of murderers, can’t be backed up by Scripture. That is the much greater problem.

    For those wishing to understand the context of what Kimball was teaching (which led him to use this illustration), here is what immediately preceded the quote from Kimball (about Cain) in his book:

    The Murderer
    John wrote that “no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” The murderer denies himself salvation in the celestial kingdom, and in this sense he cannot be forgiven for his crime.

    The instance of the first murder is instructive. Though thoroughly taught the gospel by his parents, Cain “loved Satan more than God.” He became rebellious, “carnal, sensual, and devilish.” Cain was to become the father of Satan’s lies and to be called perdition. His culminating sin was the murder of his brother Abel, which he did by secret covenant with Satan and to gain Abel’s possessions. As a punishment the Lord consigned the wicked Cain to be a fugitive and a vagabond and placed a mark upon him which would reveal his identity.

    I hope this clears up any confusion for the readers.

  11. Shem,

    Kimball spoke this with the authority vested in his position, which means it should be taken as he intended it to be taken. By him not saying it WASN’T Cain in the story, he intended it to be taken that Cain was indeed the identity. Of course Mormon theology does say that Cain was a black man, which contradicts the Bible. Cain, being the son of Adam & Eve, would be more of an olive complexion, because in his genes were the colors of the whole human race. So just this idea should be a red flag against LDS teachings.

    Since the Kimball’s book was mentioned, I would ask that you look at my short examination of this book at:
    http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-does-mormon-attain-forgiveness.html

    Then explain to me how you can know, through Mormon theology, that you can be eternally saved.

  12. PILGRIM

    As I stated before, nothing you have said is accurate.

    I appreciate the clarification, but the casual reader of the article would most likely take your meaning as outlining LDS doctrine. Whether this is intentional I will not judge, but it is still there (in the same manner as President Kimball’s words).

    As to the church not denouncing the doctrine, such a proclomation would truly be a waste of time and energy for the simple fact that it doesn’t matter. I really don’t care who believes Cain is still roaming the Earth, it will have no effect on their eternal salvation, so let them believe it. The church cannot make public statements regarding every story, theory and belief that the members choose to espouse. They limit their work to those matters that have a direct impact on the eternal welfare of the souls of men.

    As to the fate of murderers, your statement is not true, as it can be backed by the Bible. It is all in the interpretation of the Bible, and Kimball gives several verses from the Bible to support what he is saying. It may not conform to your beliefs or you interpretations, but it is still a valid interpretation.

    GLENN

    I read your article, and at first I had the intention of giving very brief answers to your questions, as they are all very easily answered. I would have been brief as I do not wish to distract this thread into a topic that it was not designed for.
    However, after reading the entire article you have spared me the need of answering anything you have said. You make no real argument conerning the book, but rather lead people in your own method of attempting to guilt and confuse people as a means of destroying faith. You have no understanding of the book and completely miss the actual message in your attempt to make it into something that is impossible.

    The simple fact is this: Complete repentence is possible, and perfection is attainable in this life. We read the Noah was perfect, as was Job (Genesis 6: 9; Job 1: 1, 8).
    At any point in our lives when we are whole committed to God and follow faithfully we have received a complete forgiveness. When we have attained such faith that we are able to be healed by the power of his spirit we receive complete forgiveness (James 5: 15).
    I can say that at several points in my life I have received a full and complete forgiveness (like when I was ordained, or when I blessed my daughter). However, due to my human weakness I have since sinned, and thus I follow the counsel of President Kimball to be continually repenting every day, for if I can go to sleep knowing that the sins of the day have been forgiven I know that I will inherit eternal life.
    This is the meaning of President Kimball, and the great hope and miracle of forgiveness: That we have the opportunity everyday to receive that forgiveness and be assured of eternal life.

  13. Dear Shem,

    At the risk of being accused again that “nothing [I] have said is accurate,” I have to say that–from your above comments–something seems amiss in your polemic.

    You’re trying to convince us that Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th president, prophet, seer, and revelator of the LDs church (who the Mormon god will not allow to lead anyone astray):
    1) Used an unfactual and outlandish tale to . . .
    2) . . . further make the case for a teaching that’s not even considered Mormon doctrine?

    Does anyone else see the absurdity of this line of argumentation? Why would Kimball waste his time on such trivial, irrelevant matters (as you charge us of doing)? We’re merely pointing out the pattern of tall tales uttered by the supposedly inspired men of Mormonism and Kimball (and this post’s example) is just one of a long line of them.

    I stand with Glenn Chatfield on this one; when Kimball wrote of this tale it was intended to convey to the reader the validity of the possibility of Cain still roaming the earth. Especially when he was using this to prove his thesis that murderers will never been forgiven of their sin.

    There’s simply no way the reader can come away with what you’re suggesting we accept now. What you want us to believe is just more Mormon revisionism. That’s why I recommend anyone who wants to know the truth about Mormonism study the early writings, not the current spin doctors.

  14. PILGRIM

    I never made the claim that
    “1) Used an unfactual and outlandish tale to . . .
    2) . . . further make the case for a teaching that’s not even considered Mormon doctrine?”

    What I said is that he used an nonfactual tale to illustrate a very real Mormon doctrine. Now, President Kimball may have believed Cain was still around, though I doubt it. However, from giving this account his intention is not automatically to teach that Cain was still around, or even to say that he accepted that he was. It was to illustrate the consequence of murder and the eternal fate of such people. This purpose is accomplished very well without taking the story literally.

    As to being outlandish, is it any more ridiculous than an ass talking, or a witch conjuring the spirit of Samuel, or any number of accounts given in the Bible? Why don’t we look at a number of claims made by the several Christian sects and dissect them according to our perception of what is outlandish and what is not?

    The simple fact is that no religion (be it Christian or otherwise) is without outlandish and ridiculous stories to offer the world. So, as I first said, to harp on them is meaningless.

  15. Although I don’t agree that this is meaningless (and apparently neither did Kimball because he took time to mention it in his book), I do agree with you that some (many) of the events recorded throughout the history of God’s people were “outlandish.”

    By man’s limited and finite perceptions, the Red Sea parting, Elijah raising a dead boy, Jesus raising a dead Lazarus, Jesus walking on water, God sending His only Son to save His elect, etc. are all “outlandish.”

    And the most “outlandish” event of all was the fact that God chose me. A wicked creature at enmity with God, a wretched sinner from birth and by nature and practice, and yet in spite of all this, He, in His infinite love, grace, and mercy, sent His only Son who—being fully God—took on human flesh and suffered and died to be a propitiation for my sins to reconcile me to Him and spare me from suffering His justly deserved wrath for eternity for the sins I inherited from Adam and for the sins I personally committed/commit. God raised me, a dead-in-transgressions, unable-to-save-himself sinner from death unto life. And why? What good was there in me? Nothing! By reconciling me to Himself He was getting nothing that benefitted Him or would add to Him. It was by His sheer grace that He saved me, for nothing in me was good, and nothing I could offer Him was good enough. That, my friend, Shem, is truly “outlandish” and that is truly amazing grace!

    But, you see, the key difference between the “outlandish” events of the Bible (including the fact that God would save someone like me) and the “outlandish” events described by Mormonism (like God living on Kolob, the mark of Cain being black skin, Cain still roaming the earth, spiritual vegetables, people living on the sun and the moon, etc.) is that the “outlandish” events of the Bible actually occurred, whereas the “outlandish” events of Mormonism are simply more tall tales perched atop a house of cards made up of more tall tales. Of which, I might add, Mormon apologists (not much unlike yourself) have been working overtime to keep from collapsing thanks to recent discoveries which have exposed Mormonism as the fiction it is. Discoveries like the papyrus that Joseph Smith supposedly translated (in a language that doesn’t exist) that became the Book of Abraham (which turned out to be a fraud), the discovery (thanks to DNA) that American Indians are not descendants of Israel (although that was already obvious to archeologists, historians, linguists, anthropologists, etc.), as well as the utter lack of any substantive archeological discoveries to support Mormon lands and empires.

    Allow me to give you another example (not related directly to Mormonism).

    Believers of the Bible attest that God created the earth ex nihilo in six literal days, while evolutionists claim we arrived at where we are today by evolution. Both of these claims are “outlandish” but only one can be true. An eternal God speaking all matter into existence is “outlandish” as well as nothing coming from nowhere then exploding to create order and life is “outlandish.” Two opposing claims can never be true without violating the law of non-contradiction, so only one of these can be true.

    It is the same with the current topic. The Biblical account of events throughout history is “outlandish” but it is truth simply not true. They are just more wild claims by a religion that was founded on wild claims.

    For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness [outlandish?]; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18

  16. Woah, woah, woah. This is an actual doctrine that Cain is still alive and walking the Earth? I know of a role playing game that proposed that, but they also said that Cain was an all-powerful vampire (so maybe alive isn’t the right word). But as for someone actually believing that the Mark of Cain made him a Highlander?

    And people think it’s us Christian fundies that are the crazy ones.

  17. “This is an actual doctrine . . . ?”

    Actually, 072591, it depends on what the subject is. You see, the words of an LDS prophet are as good as doctrine and even trump and supersede the words of previous prophets (even if they’re in complete contradiction) as long as the subject is favorable. But as soon as it is unfavorable (e.g. Blood Atonement, racism, etc.) then all of a sudden the words of the prophet become “just his opinion.”

    It’s like magic!

    Although it’s a quick and convenient tactic to employ by Mormon apologists, it is easily and summarily dismantled by their own prophets’ words (unless, of course, those were just their opinions too). Check out But That Was Just His Opinion to see just how erroneous this defense is.

    Since prophet Kimball wrote about this Cain story in his book, no matter how much back-peddling LDS apologists want to do to downplay the inevitable conclusion, it cannot be ignored that Kimball lent credibility to this story, and thus implied (strongly I might add) that the story was possibly true.

  18. Pilgrim,

    True, dat. And it’s exactly the way Roman Catholics respond to crazy stuff their officers spout.

  19. What Constitutes LDS Doctrine?

    I have never been a big fan of “that was his opinion” arguments, as it is difficult to prove. I do believe it is valid, but I try to avoid it. I will, however, frequently comment on what actually constitutes doctrine. And this is the law of the church for determining this.
    Nothing is doctrine until it has been submitted to the general membership of the church and receives a unanimous vote for making it such. Anything that has been so submitted is doctrine and binding on the church. Anything that has not been so submitted is not doctrine and thus is not binding on the church.
    As the book “The Miracle of Forgiveness” has never been submitted it is not a book of binding doctrine. As the book that is sited for telling this particular story was never submitted it is not binding doctrine. As the story itself has not been submitted it is not binding doctrine.

    Now, as to modern prophets, anyone who claims they “trump” previous prophets is in error, or just plain lying. The simple fact is that God has revealed his word, and it is contained within the Standard works of the church. Any current leader teaching anything contrary to these scriptures can be dismissed, as they are the standard by which all else is measured.

    So, going back to the topic of this thread, while I still do not believe President Kimball was trying to say this story is true, if it contradicts anything in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price we can dismiss it as false. And since the Bible clearly teaches that only all life that was not on the Arc was destroyed in the flood we reject that concept that Cain is still alive.

  20. SHEMATWATER SAID:

    “Now, as to modern prophets, anyone who claims they ‘trump’ previous prophets is in error, or just plain lying. The simple fact is that God has revealed his word, and it is contained within the Standard works of the church. Any current leader teaching anything contrary to these scriptures can be dismissed, as they are the standard by which all else is measured.”

    IN THE 14 FUNDAMENTALS OF FOLLOWING THE PROPHET, LDS PROPHET EZRA TAFT BENSON SAID:

    The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works

    .

    President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

    “I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

    “When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)

    IN THE SAME ARTICLE LDS PROPHET EZRA TAFT BENSON ALSO SAID:

    The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

    God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each month in our Church Magazines. Our instructions about what we should do for each six months are found in the General Conference addresses which are printed in the Church magazine.

    Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.

    Thank you for your opinion, Shematwater, but I will rely on the published words of your prophets to show me what Mormonism teaches and believes over that of the suggestions and theories of the current crop of LDS spin doctors.

  21. Shematwater,

    You attempt to marginalize my article about Kimball’s book by claiming I misunderstood it. I cited exactly what Kimball stated and I submit you are the one reading into what he said because what he said is a very scary idea – that you can never know if you are forgiven. You practice eisegesis with Kimball. I suggest you take a look at this link and then say you know you can be forgiven (this article uses “official” LDS doctrine):
    http://blog.mrm.org/2011/01/looking-for-forgiveness-in-the-lds-church/

    Is it really outlandish for God to give an ass the ability to speak? God is the Creator, after all. And many scholars have suggested animals may have originally had some sort of speech because Eve was not surprised at the serpent talking. And you apparently don’t read Scripture very closely, because the witch didn’t conjure up Samuel – she herself was startled by his appearance. God brought Samuel to Saul to rebuke him for what he was doing and used the witch being there as the instrument. There is nothing outlandish in the Bible. However I can tell of many outlandish things in the BOM, just starting with a guy who has lost so much blood in battle that he faints and then has his head cut off, and then he gets up and gasps for air!!!!!!

    The true Christian faith has no outlandish or ridiculous stories.

    Now about what constitutes LDS doctrine:
    D&C 68:4 “And whatsoever they [LDS elders] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” Was this “submitted to the general membership” and did it receive a unanimous vote? No; it was a direct revelation from God to Joseph Smith.

    Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 3:1282: “The inspired utterances of the President of the Church become binding upon members of the Church whether formally accepted as part of the written canon or not. The living prophet’s inspired words supersede and become more important to the Latter-day Saints than the written canon or previous prophetic statements”

    Journal of Discourses, 6:320 (Brigham Young): “…the words of an Apostle who magnifies his calling are the words of the Almighty to the people all the time. He never need be called in question whether he revealed the mind of the Lord or not.”

    Gospel Truth, p.332 (George C. Cannon): “It seems nonsensical that the Prophet of God could not deem the revelations he received authentic until they had the approval of the different quorums of the Church. They were authentic and divinely inspired whether any man or body of men received them or not.”

    Mormon Doctrine, p.149-150 (Bruce McConkie): “Administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent…. Revelations given of God through his prophets, however, are not subject to an approving or sustaining vote of the people in order to establish their validity….there is no provision in the Lord’s plan for members of the Church to pass upon the validity of revelations themselves by a vote of the Church; there is nothing permitting the Church to choose which of the revelations will be binding upon it, either by a vote of the people or by other means.”

    Now, Brigham Young was a prophet who claimed he got the Adam-God doctrine by direct revelation of the Lord. Current LDS leaders deny this doctrine. You can’t have it both ways; either Young was speaking for the Lord as a true prophet or else he was not a prophet of God. This is but one example of how the current leadership tries to discount false teachings that embarrass the church.

    You say if anything your leaders say contradict the Bible, then you can dismiss it as false, therefore by your own words the entire LDS theology must be dismissed as false because everything it it contradicts the Bible, let alone the Book of Mormon. Much current teaching also contradicts the the D&C, and the BOM and D&C contradict each other, as does the POGP! Your collection of “Standard works” are full of contradictions with each other.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: