omegaseamaster75
-
Posts
2163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by omegaseamaster75
-
-
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Believing our prophet's words should be taken as scripture is "sad", huh?
You're making it something that it is not. Out leaders give us wise council, inspired council revelatory council, but they are not always speaking for the Lord. While what they say make be doctrinal, scriptural and good sound advice it does not make it scripture.
What makes you think that it is? Do you honestly think that when the prophet speaks that it is as if God is speaking to you? If you do you don't really understand how revelation works.
-
4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
I believe that separating "culture" from "the gospel" has about as much value as separating "doctrine" from "policy" or separating "counsel" from "commandment". That is to say: none. Intellectually I agree there are differences. I do not believe there is any value to differentiating between the these things beyond common sense.
Sadly you do because you end up getting this stuff
The words of the prophets are scripture.
-
18 hours ago, Vort said:
Here:
Elder Benson, speaking in his capacity as an apostle, gave sage advice. You are seeking to discount it.
I'm not discounting his advice I am saying it's not doctrine
18 hours ago, Vort said:You are incorrect. You are playing with words to try to do a "gotcha". That the President of the Church is the person who uniquely holds the active keys of revelation for the Church as a whole is beyond dispute. it is through the prophet, and him alone, that the Church will receive revelation that modifies the doctrine of the Church, such as President Kimball's 1978 revelation.
Not trying to play gotcha you made a statement that was and is wrong, and you just doubled down on being wrong. Well played.
23 hours ago, Vort said:Of course an apostle can receive revelation for the Church. Do you claim he cannot?
-
1 minute ago, Vort said:
I find this rather entertaining. @omegaseamaster75 is pretending to be orthodox and establish that the prophet alone receives revelation to guide the entire Church -- yet is doing so in order to undermine prophetic teachings of apostles, a decidedly non-orthodox position.
Which prophetic teaching have I undermined?
I find it entertaining that you were caught out as being wrong and won't own up to it. It's one thing to have an opinion about something it's another to be just flat out wrong, proven wrong and then to try to dodge and change the subject.
-
1 minute ago, Vort said:
Consider the context. When an apostle receives an assignment from the First Presidency, he is entitled to revelation for that assignment -- which affects the entire Church. Of course an apostle receives revelation for the entire Church. Offering a quotation out of context does not change that obvious truth.
Really? The context? it's straight from the LDS website.
Who gives the assignments? honestly it's ok to eat crow every once in a while.
-
3 hours ago, Vort said:
Of course an apostle can receive revelation for the Church. Do you claim he cannot?
https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng
As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church.
-
2 hours ago, Fether said:
Earlier you also talked about us members “ratifying” scripture. Where does this idea come from? Honest question, I have never heard that my word can effect what is doctrine and what is not.
Sure:
1830, bible and BOM officially accepted with the organization of the church
1835 first 103 sections of D&C officially accepted
1880 D&D added additional 32 sections along with POGP
1890 official declaration repeal of polygamy
1976 D&C sections 137 & 138 added offically
1978 priesthood given to all worthy males
On each occasion each item required approval of the first presidency, concurrence of the quorum of twelve apostles and then accepted in a sustaining vote by the entire membership. This is our doctrine, the standard works as we currently have them and official declarations ratified by the 12 and then the entire body of the church. Everything else is just policy subject to change. Can you imagine if every Sermon given of Brigham Young was taken as doctrine?
We just went through a large policy change in our current conference, with the priesthood quorums and change in policy to home/visiting teaching.
3 hours ago, Fether said:church felt like it was true enough to put in their teachings of the presidents books.
I never said what they said wasn't true, in fact in think I said that we should follow the counsel of our prophets. It's just not scripture in the technical sense.
-
3 hours ago, Vort said:
Of course an apostle can receive revelation for the Church. Do you claim he cannot?
I do make that claim
3 hours ago, Vort said:And just who do you suppose makes the Church's policies, if not the apostles? You, perhaps?
Apostles make policy plural not individually, it is done by committee.
-
Just now, Vort said:
An apostle is not authorized to speak in behalf of the Church?
can an apostle make policy? Can an apostle receive revelation for the church?
-
1 hour ago, Fether said:
Every member of the church ought to take every word spoken in conference as scriptural.
delete
-
Just now, Vort said:
Pretty sure I sustained him as a prophet, seer, and revelator before he gave that talk.
You might have, but he was not the prophet when he gave that talk and not authorized to speak for and on behalf of the church.
-
2 hours ago, Fether said:
“When the Lord’s servants speak or write under the influence of the Holy Ghost, their words become scripture”
https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-10-scriptures?lang=eng
Well if it was in gospel principles than I'm convinced
2 hours ago, Fether said:What is the Book of Mormon if not words of dead prophets? Are their words more inspired than prophets today? I would argue and say that the words modern day prophets are more important than the words of dead prophets.
I agree the Book of Mormon is the word of God as ratified by the prophet, quorum of the 12 and the body of the church this makes it cannon and doctrine.
I also agree that the words of modern day prophets are important and we should follow their counsel.
-
2 hours ago, Fether said:
“The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.” - President Benson
You should read this https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng
I have read that, a talk given by Ezra Taft Benson WHEN HE WAS NOt THE PROPHET, and NOT DURING GENERAL CONFERENCE. We can discuss the problems with that talk if you want.
-
4 minutes ago, Fether said:
The words of the prophets are scripture.
Really? I don't remember ratifying new scripture in the last conference, I also didn't hear a "Thus saith the Lord" during any of the conference talks.
-
On 4/14/2018 at 9:08 AM, Grunt said:
Sorry for another garment discussion. I didn’t see a clear answer when I searched, but that may just be due to searching on a cell phone.
Why do some Mormons wear garments and others don’t? Is it a bad thing to not wear them? Are there clear directions given when they should or shouldn’t be worn (exercise, swimming, KISS concerts, etc)?
Sometimes I wish we had a “members only” section in case I ask something inappropriate.
I live by the three S's
Sports/gym
Swimming
Sex
I take my garments off for all three. Otherwise there is no reason to not wear them as outlined. You will see wild and various speculation with regards to the sports/gym wearing of them. You need to take your own temperature on that once you go through the temple for yourself.
-
42 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
I think they try, yeah.
I have a somewhat skewed perception of what constitutes an “obedient” missionary, though. In my mission “missionary obedience” was largely quantified and reported by how we managed our time. Each day we had to log what time we woke up, how many minutes we studied (both individually and with our companions), what time we left our apartment, what time we got back each night, what time we went to sleep, whether we spent more than a certain amount of time at members’ houses. Any violation of a mission time standard was deemed a “disobedient act” (a “buraco”, which in Portuguese literally means “hole”); and zone “obedience” was ranked at mission conferences and in the mission newsletter by the number of “buracos” each zone had incurred for a given time period.
This is the kind of nonsense I am talking about, loggin what time you woke up, how long you studied what time you got in, who you visited and for how long. Who compiles all this info? talk about a waste of your and the Lords time.
43 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:I’ve never been great for punctuality; so I consistently incurred a higher-than-average number of “buracos” and thus never really considered myself a particularly “obedient” missionary. But, in hindsight, if you determine “obedience” according to the general Church behavioral standards in conjunction with the missionary rules as given by Salt Lake in what we called the “white bible”—eighty to ninety percent of us were probably doing fine; even if our miserable bullying APs and ZLs habitually tried to persuade us otherwise.
(I’m pretty orthodox Mormon; but hearing that someone was an AP is a strike against them in my book. Yes, I have issues.
)
No one should be bullied into obeying the rules, and if your ZL and APs acted like that shame on them.
- Just_A_Guy and Midwest LDS
-
1
-
1
-
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Veiled?
not openly or directly expressed; masked; disguised; hidden;obscure
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
So you insulted TFP by writing "Says the guy who wasn't an AP" because you were attempting to illustrate that the most effective missionary was not always the most obedient?
Bull. No one believes you. You don't even believe such a transparent lie.
Yup that's what happened. Again your right I'm a liar and incorrect as per usual.
-
2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
It is true. You are entitled to your opinion. It doesn't seem to be an opinion shared by those who have the authority and position to actually say what is and isn't a commandment.
I don't have to agree with them either. I coventanted to obey the WOW and I do. The whats whys, and reasons that we do it are a mystery to me, other than God said so.
-
2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
You are entitled to your own opinion, for sure. But no one is entitled to their own facts.
I don't think I am making anything up, if I am I am happy to be wrong.
-
4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Sometimes God gives us random rules just for obedience sake I suppose. But typically there is a reason.
This......the reason, it's pure speculation I hope someday we will find out.
-
3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Let's take your word for it for the sake of moving on and not getting unnecessarily personal... What did you mean then by pointing out that (you presume) I wasn't an AP? Did you have a point? Or was it just meant as an attempted smear?
A veiled attempt to smear obviously.
The point is that the most rule abiding Missionaries are not always the most effective. I used the example of AP because the assumption is that as AP you are the exemplar missionary, most obedient, etc, etc. I used my example because I was not a rule stickler yet was still very effective.
It's pointless to discuss....
-
36 minutes ago, Vort said:
Hmmmm...
Yeah, I'll stick with my initial impression.
Fine with me. Your wrong by the way...again.
-
1 hour ago, Anddenex said:
The Word of Wisdom is now by way of commandment. I am not sure why people want to play this trivial game of "not given by way of commandment" when our teetotaling leaders made it a commandment through inspiration from the Lord, meaning God commanded it through a principle of -- Article of Faith #9.
No one is playing a trivial game. I can read the scripture same as you and it says what it says. They (leadership) changed by policy how we as members practice and follow the word of wisdom they didn't change the word of wisdom, they didn't change the standard works. They can change it back or add to it as needed. You want to use the 9th article of faith as your substantiation fine with me. I am entitled to my opinion on the subject.
- JohnsonJones and Crypto
-
2
Religious vs cultural Mormonism
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted