Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Shouldn't shake your faith in the gospel, it should shake your faith in blindly following a Prophet that is teaching doctrine that is against the scriptures. (assuming it was widely held, which I'm still not sure of)
And how would one who believes in following the "prophet" know if they were blindly following a "prophet" teaching false doctrine, and what should they do if they so determined?

Simple really, look to the scriptures, this is where our doctrine is found, murder is clearly against scriptuaral teaching.
Only in the scriptures, huh? Not according to E.T. Benson, in his "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet." He said (emphasis added):

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

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

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture.

among other things. So, once again, going back to Brigham Young's time, how would a faithful member of the Church not put Young's teachings and sermons, be it about blood atonement, blacks, the Adam-God doctrine, or anything else, above anything in said scriptures? According to Benson's logic, blood atonement and Adam-God were "scripture" in Young's time.

Try not to avoid the question this time. How does one who is taught to follow the "prophet" know if the prophet is full of crap?


I believe everything said above, however, you have taken this out of context above, and are leaving out key ingrediants on this topic. That is...

1. The path that something that becomes doctrine in the church.
2. The the key ingrediants of our own God given answer to prayers.

If we see that something seemingly is going against all that has been taught in scripture, it is not doctrine, then it is our duty and obligation to pray and gain an answer for ourselves of the doctrinal soundness of what is being taught. As we are also taught to not blindly follow, but to get our own answers to things we believe are not doctrinal.

1. As Truthhurts stated...Mormons under the leadership of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and certain other leaders of the LDS Church were taught to believe that EVERY word that came out of the prophet's mouth should be considered to be doctrinal...that the prophet need not say 'Thus saith the Lord' in order for his words to be taken as doctrinal.

The early Mormons were happy enough to heed every teaching, because they had no reason to question the words and teachings of their current leaders.

2. Yes...the key ingredient is God's answer to our individual prayers.

Interesting that...how one individual may receive one answer...and another receives a quite different answer.

And how each individual might believe that the answer he/she received is THE ONLY RIGHT ANSWER.

One size does not fit all. Two people might wear the same sized shoes...but two different people might have two different opinions regarding the fit and comfort of said shoes.

Your biggest problem on this forum, and in your religious beliefs is that you insist that if another individual does not believe exactly as you do, that the individual is not heeding God or the prophets, and are falling into apostasy.

The Apostle Paul taught that one man might esteem one day above all the rest...and another man might esteem all days alike.

Which man, then, is wrong?

One man believes that Friday is the start of the Sabbath. Another believes that Saturday is the start of the Sabbath. Another believes that the dawning of a Sunday is the start of the Sabbath.

Who is right? Who is wrong?

Paul taught this...'Let every man be fully persuaded in his own heart'.

Religious belief is a highly personal and individual thing. If you take a congregation of worshipers in any given Church, and could divine their deepest beliefs regarding God, the nature of God, and God's will for them...you would never come up with two identical sets of beliefs.

As YOU would have it...anyone who's personal beliefs weren't identical to yours is in apostasy.

And if they refuse to 'come around to your way of thinking'...they ought to leave the Church altogether.

The Mormons under Brigham Young's leadership took it a step further. If a member fell into apostasy, and refused to repent and return to the fold, he faced the possibility of excommunication, and of being used up in order to save the flock from untoward influences of said apostate.

You may believe this or not. But that's just the way things were.

I have relatives journals who show that not all doctrines taught were automatically assumed as doctrine, in fact my great great grandfather wrote letters to SL to challenge some.

That's interesting! Post some of what you great-great-grandfather wrote to the authorities.

There in the churches site of journal's of the early saints.

Give me your great-great-grandfather's name, and the next time I am in SLC (should be in November), I will look at and read them. Sounds interesting.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/150th-anniversary-of-mountain-meadows-massacre#continued

I speak today, by assignment, on behalf of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In so doing, I express their appreciation for the invitation to participate on this program.

We(remember he's on assignment from the church, so "we" is the church) express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time.

A separate expression of regret is owed to the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre. Although the extent of their involvement is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local Church leaders and members.


Enough is enough James, get over it, its done, get back to church where your wife and kids deserve a strong preisthood holder who is not fighting against the church.

A strong priesthood holder is as a strong priesthood holder does.

As you have said so often...fix your own life before trying to fix someone else's life.

He's not a priesthood holder, and not really the point to begin with. An apology has happened, he and myomyomy (and Wren) don't seem to understand this.

Only in your mind, Dubbs, and no one else.

Lovie wrote: "Records show that Hibee and Height met on this matter long befor Lee was called in. and from what I have read. Lee had to be talked into it. He also was absent on the first day, but took part after thing had already got started. READ Dubbbies it a great way to learn!"

Dubbs writes: "If he had to be talked into it, it contradicts your point, and Jaye's claims, that all the saints believe it was from God."

Your argument, Dubbs, is called a non sequitur, the conclusion does not follow from the evidence. Additionally, you falsely misconstrue Lovie and Jaye to have written "all saints believe it was from God." Only YOU have written that.

Dubbs comments are irresponsible and irrelevant. Let's move on.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:I agree, but feel it should be the Holy Ghost(not women) that should bring about repentance and knowing right from wrong. The Church is a great example for good in a troubled world. I do believe that even good members including leaders can make mistakes in judgement today as in times of MM. We must have confidence in their teachings. MM casts doubt upon even good leadership. All I know is that I will need to answer to God someday. So if it doesn't feel right, I won't support something just because my leaders tell me to do so (or else).[/qu

The thing you are forgetting is BY sent a letter telling the saints to leave the settlers alone and allow them to pass safely. So to say he caused it is not looking at the facts.

This is a fact the anti's don't like, but it is a fact non the less.[/qu
"LOL" wasn't that letter sent after the fact Dubbs...??? smells like a cover up to me...!!! "LOL"[/

No, not the case Dumby. Typical Big, knows part of the story, but not the accurate story.

The letter was written days before the attack, the horseback rider who delivered it got there after the attack happened.

See bigdumby, back then, it took 2-3 days to travel from SL to Cedar city by horseback, they didn't have cars or email, or even phones then. Get it now?

Your account is not entirely accurateDubbs.

Brigham Young had already dispatched George Albert Smith to the southern settlements earlier that month to warn them of the approaching United States army and recommend that the colonists not trade with any non-Mormons then traveling through their territory. Smith also counseled that they prepare to flee to the mountains if required.

As Smith and Hamblin were returning to SLC, they encountered the Fancher train.

The Fancher train asked for advice as to where they could rest up their cattle. Jacob Hamblin advised them to go to Mountain Meadows area...but neither he nor Smith thought to tell them about the necessity of a permit for buying and trading for supplies, or see whether they had one.

Nor did that venerable Apostle, G.A.S. think to alert the Fanchers as to the reasons the Mormons in the southern settlements had been put on alert due to the advancing federal troops, and the belief that Mormons might once again fall under attack.

One would think that a decent and God fearing Apostle would caution these travelers...being that the Mormons were so recently strangers in a strange land.

The Fancher train was set up to fall...pure and simple.

annnndd what was not accurate about my statements?

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Shouldn't shake your faith in the gospel, it should shake your faith in blindly following a Prophet that is teaching doctrine that is against the scriptures. (assuming it was widely held, which I'm still not sure of)
And how would one who believes in following the "prophet" know if they were blindly following a "prophet" teaching false doctrine, and what should they do if they so determined?

Simple really, look to the scriptures, this is where our doctrine is found, murder is clearly against scriptuaral teaching.
Only in the scriptures, huh? Not according to E.T. Benson, in his "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet." He said (emphasis added):

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

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

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture.

among other things. So, once again, going back to Brigham Young's time, how would a faithful member of the Church not put Young's teachings and sermons, be it about blood atonement, blacks, the Adam-God doctrine, or anything else, above anything in said scriptures? According to Benson's logic, blood atonement and Adam-God were "scripture" in Young's time.

Try not to avoid the question this time. How does one who is taught to follow the "prophet" know if the prophet is full of crap?


I believe everything said above, however, you have taken this out of context above, and are leaving out key ingrediants on this topic. That is...

1. The path that something that becomes doctrine in the church.
2. The the key ingrediants of our own God given answer to prayers.

If we see that something seemingly is going against all that has been taught in scripture, it is not doctrine, then it is our duty and obligation to pray and gain an answer for ourselves of the doctrinal soundness of what is being taught. As we are also taught to not blindly follow, but to get our own answers to things we believe are not doctrinal.

1. As Truthhurts stated...Mormons under the leadership of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and certain other leaders of the LDS Church were taught to believe that EVERY word that came out of the prophet's mouth should be considered to be doctrinal...that the prophet need not say 'Thus saith the Lord' in order for his words to be taken as doctrinal.

The early Mormons were happy enough to heed every teaching, because they had no reason to question the words and teachings of their current leaders.

2. Yes...the key ingredient is God's answer to our individual prayers.

Interesting that...how one individual may receive one answer...and another receives a quite different answer.

And how each individual might believe that the answer he/she received is THE ONLY RIGHT ANSWER.

One size does not fit all. Two people might wear the same sized shoes...but two different people might have two different opinions regarding the fit and comfort of said shoes.

Your biggest problem on this forum, and in your religious beliefs is that you insist that if another individual does not believe exactly as you do, that the individual is not heeding God or the prophets, and are falling into apostasy.

The Apostle Paul taught that one man might esteem one day above all the rest...and another man might esteem all days alike.

Which man, then, is wrong?

One man believes that Friday is the start of the Sabbath. Another believes that Saturday is the start of the Sabbath. Another believes that the dawning of a Sunday is the start of the Sabbath.

Who is right? Who is wrong?

Paul taught this...'Let every man be fully persuaded in his own heart'.

Religious belief is a highly personal and individual thing. If you take a congregation of worshipers in any given Church, and could divine their deepest beliefs regarding God, the nature of God, and God's will for them...you would never come up with two identical sets of beliefs.

As YOU would have it...anyone who's personal beliefs weren't identical to yours is in apostasy.

And if they refuse to 'come around to your way of thinking'...they ought to leave the Church altogether.

The Mormons under Brigham Young's leadership took it a step further. If a member fell into apostasy, and refused to repent and return to the fold, he faced the possibility of excommunication, and of being used up in order to save the flock from untoward influences of said apostate.

You may believe this or not. But that's just the way things were.

I have relatives journals who show that not all doctrines taught were automatically assumed as doctrine, in fact my great great grandfather wrote letters to SL to challenge some.

That's interesting! Post some of what you great-great-grandfather wrote to the authorities.

There in the churches site of journal's of the early saints.

Give me your great-great-grandfather's name, and the next time I in SLC (should be in November), I will look at and read them. Sounds interesting.

Give me your name and address first.

Wren wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
[b]
Poor Dubbs the attack happend in the early morning hours of September 7th and all were dead by the 11th of September,.

Wow, it now happened on the 7th and not the 11th? You are seriously one of the most inacurate people I know bigdumby.

Wren can you correct him that it happend on the 11th?

It began as an attack on Sept.7th in the early morning hours as the emigrants sat eating breakfast, quickly turned into a siege, and eventually culminated on September 11, 1857, in the execution of the unarmed emigrants after their surrender.

John was right.

Don't ask me, Dubbs, since you don't accept my comments. Ask John and Jaye.


Dubbs go to http://www.lds.org/Static%20Files/PDF/Magazines/Ensign/English/2007/EN_2007_09_00___00609_000_000.pdf

Page 15, It was a A Five-Day Siege. Read the churches tell. It fits your Intellectual level