omegaseamaster75
-
Posts
2163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by omegaseamaster75
-
-
I agree with the words you write above. But based on previous conversations, I have some doubts, so I want to make sure we're speaking the same language.
When you say "the decision should be up to the individual": What do you mean by that? For example, who else would make such a decision for a young man? I see your statement here as true but trivially obvious; no one else is in a position to make his decisions for him.
When you say "we should not preach damnation...for not fulfilling his priesthood duties": Under what circumstances might we be justified in "preaching damnation" to someone? Or is it that you have seen people "preach damnation" to a young man who didn't serve a mission? Or is this simply hyperbole?
When you say that we should not "chastise him": Again, under what circumstances might we want to "chastise him"? I'm almost 52, and I do not recall ever having chastised anyone in my ward for having failed to perform his Priesthood service (except possibly my sons). I have occasionally done so in online forums such as this one, but in the position of someone engaged in discussion and debate, not as one holding any actual authority to admonish another.
Is it the case that some areas of the Church just have lots and lots of members waiting to pile on any LDS young man who doesn't serve a mission?In short, what you write seems obviously true, but no more relevant than saying, "We shouldn't slice open and gut people for not serving missions." Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible.
Final thought: Are you suggesting that, in discussions at Church and on this forum, we should avoid making statements such as "It is the duty of every young man to prepare himself to serve a full-time mission"? If so, what is your rationale for counseling against speaking the truth, in fact the selfsame truth that the prophets themselves have taught?
I am too often combative, and even when I'm not, I too often come across that way. In this case, I am not trying to be combative; my questions are sincere.
To clarify, only the individual can choose to serve or not. As parents and leaders we need to be cautious about this because the pressures and expectations that we place on our children do influence them. In this case a good and positive influence, however when a young man declares that he has desires to serve those outlaying pressures should not be the reason that he answers in the affirmative. I personally know of YM who went because of social/family pressure not because of a true desire to serve. No one is in a position to "make" those decisions for the YM, but lets remember that they are 18. My hope would be that in interviews with the bishop and stake president that those concerns would be resolved.
If a YM chooses not to serve he knows that he at that point and time that he has not fulfilled his priesthood duties because those who are BIC are taught about the importance of serving a mission from their youth. There may be a variety of reasons for not serving including a lack of faith/mental/social issues/worthiness issues. So the question becomes how do we treat this individual when they do not serve? Do we want to encourage them and keep them in the fold? Yes I think that we do. They need the time and opportunity to "get right" with their duties.
My hyperbole is just that, trying to emphasize a point.
Do members sit in judgement? yes quite often, and these YM are painfully aware of it.
I wonder what the activity rate is for YM who do not serve? I suspect low but I have nothing to back this up. Lets assume low. If so this needs to be addressed.
On this forum there is nothing wrong with stating "It is the duty of every young man to serve" It has been stated as such by our leaders and is written out in our handbooks. In discussions at church if during the course of a lesson/talk nothing wrong with it. Those who have failed in their duties know who they are.
Finally yes there is always a time and place to call someone to repentance and chastise them. I would exercise caution and not overstep my authority and circle for whom I presume to receive revelation for. I recently participated in a training given by an area 70 to the local leaders. He let the hammer drop, and to be honest I thought it was great. It should be noted that he knew his audience, and acted under the mantel of his priesthood authority in doing so.
-
To clarify, You still need to backup the idea that ONLY those things that have been canonized as scripture qualify as "doctrine".
History is on my side on this one, dispute it if you want I have shown how the church establishes doctrine via historical precedent.
Doctrine is eternal, does not change (because God does not change) which is why the establishment of "new" (to us) doctrine is so rare.
You have shown nothing other than to out of hand say that I am incorrect.
-
duplicate post
-
Guys... I'm really getting confused here...
How is it that we can't even agree on what the word Doctrine means?
Why is it that an LDS Church that believes in Modern Revelation requires unchanging doctrine? So much so that if it changes, then it must be just policy... or it is in error?
I just don't get it... I associate unchanging doctrine with Catholics.
Our Gospel Doctrines are unchanged because God does not change.
Mormon 9:9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?
As new Doctrines are revealed (new to us) policies and practices may change.
-
To clarify,
Doctrine is defined by the First Presidency and the quorum of the 12. So how does their having defined the priesthood restriction as doctrine not fit?
In every instance of the history of the church where Doctrine has been added to our cannon of scripture and this has only happened 6 times a three step process has been followed. Approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.
.
I had outlined this previously. The priesthood restriction does not fit because these three steps were not followed. It is not in our cannon of scripture, or official proclamations.
-
Which parts of the law of consecration as covenanted by us do we not need to practice? Be specific.
CONSECRATE, LAW OF CONSECRATION
To dedicate, to make holy, or to become righteous. The law of consecration is a divine principle whereby men and women voluntarily dedicate their time, talents, and material wealth to the establishment and building up of God’s kingdom.
- Consecrate yourselves to day to the Lord:Ex. 32:29; We do this
- All that believed had all things common:Acts 2:44–45; We do this
- They had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor:4 Ne. 1:3; We don't don't this
- The Lord explained the principles of consecration:D&C 42:30–39; ( D&C 51:2–19; D&C 58:35–36; )
- One man should not possess more than another:D&C 49:20; We don't do this either
- Every man was given an equal portion according to his family:D&C 51:3; Nope not doing this one
- An order was established so that the Saints could be equal in bonds of heavenly and earthly things:D&C 78:4–5; Nope
- Every man was to have equal claim according to his wants and needs:D&C 82:17–19; Nope
- Zion can only be built up by the principles of celestial law:D&C 105:5; Trying to I think
- The people of Enoch were of one heart and one mind and dwelt in righteousness, and there were no poor among them:Moses 7:18; Nope
So mostly at least from a physical good view point we do not practice the Law (doctrine) of Consecration. because it is the Policy of the church not to at this time. Could this change yes and I think that it will, but that is not the current policy.
To Clarify we are commanded and must obey and practice all parts of the Law of Consecration. We currently do not.
-
Was the first presidency then intentionally misleading in 1949?
Law of Consecration is not in affect? Why am I covenanted to live it?
contrary to popular belief they did not lead the church astray, see the quote by Bruce R Mcconkie posted above, limited light limited understanding
-
Every young man "Should" prepare to go on a mission. The mission is not for everyone, and I think that Vort outlined some excellent reason as to why a young man may not be eligible to go, or may do an alternative type of mission if he is worthy and has the desire.
Belief is enough, this should in time with dedicated study and prayer turn into a testimony of the gospel.
A mission is not easy. Let no one tell you any different, I found that during my mission the struggles made me stronger. These are the things that helped me find and grow roots in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is more to the mission than just preaching the gospel you are being prepared for life. This is an invaluable experience that cannot be replaced by formal education.
I firmly believe that the decision should be up to the individual and that we should not preach damnation or chastise him for not fulfilling his priesthood duties. I have discovered that everyone runs at their own pace when it comes to the gospel, and some barely make it past a crawl.
-
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.
oh here is the link so you don't think I'm making it up:http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine
This is how doctrine is established as outlined by the church not how TFP thinks we receive our doctrine.
-
Another point I'd like to make however. There is only one person on the earth with the authority and right to define LDS doctrine. 1. Period. That is the prophet. A website put out by the church does not define doctrine. A church vote does not define doctrine. The prophet does.
The prophet, seer, and revelator has this right to define doctrine. It does not matter if it is his opinion. It does not matter if he is wrong. It is his right and his authority to do so and no one else's.
So when the first presidency comes out with an official statement, as we have shown, from whatever decade, stating the such-n-such is doctrine, I'm going to go with it being doctrine until the prophet, currently Pres. Monson, of course, says otherwise.
That's right. I'm trumping your unattributed website quote with the quote(s) of a prophet, seer and revelator.
D&C 28:13 explains “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." Since the Church was founded in 1830, new doctrine has been accepted six times. On every occasion, a three-step process was followed to add Official Doctrine: It requires the approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and then it must be accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.
Only then is it binding on the membership of the Church. The change will then be made to the body of accepted (canonized) scriptures. Those occasions are:
- 1830, Bible and Book of Mormon were officially accepted with the organization of the Church
- 1835, Doctrine and Covenants, first 103 sections were officially accepted
- 1880, Doctrine and Covenants additional 32 sections were accepted along with the Pearl of Great Price
- 1890, Polygamy was repealed (Official Declaration, p. 291)
- 1976, D&C sections 137 & 138 were officially accepted
- 1978, The priesthood was made available to all worthy males regardless of race (Official Declaration 2, p. 292)
This is the doctrine of the church....
-
You keep harping on this like anyone really cares what it's called. Who cares? Call it policy all you want. It means nothing.
Another point I'd like to make however. There is only one person on the earth with the authority and right to define LDS doctrine. 1. Period. That is the prophet. A website put out by the church does not define doctrine. A church vote does not define doctrine. The prophet does.
So this whole use of a website as if it establishes the reality of what we're all supposed to believe doesn't really hold so much weight as you're putting to it. Certainly, the use of the word "policy" in a single sentence therein does not define it for the church. In point of fact, neither do to the statements by apostles such as Elder Packer when weighed against the words of a prophet.
The prophet, seer, and revelator has this right to define doctrine. It does not matter if it is his opinion. It does not matter if he is wrong. It is his right and his authority to do so and no one else's.
So when the first presidency comes out with an official statement, as we have shown, from whatever decade, stating the such-n-such is doctrine, I'm going to go with it being doctrine until the prophet, currently Pres. Monson, of course, says otherwise.
That's right. I'm trumping your unattributed website quote with the quote(s) of a prophet, seer and revelator.
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng souce of my unattributed quotes which I have posted earlier with links and citations. Quotes and annotations only seem to matter to you when you find a GA or Prophet who go you way however.
Resources- 2 Nephi 26:33. See also Acts 10:34-35; 17:26; Romans 2:11; 10:12; Galatians 3:28.
- To facilitate involvement of Church members who do not speak the dominant language of the area in which they live, some congregations are organized among speakers of the same language (such as Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, or Tongan). In such cases, members can choose which congregation to attend.
- At some periods of time, reflecting local customs and laws, there were instances of segregated congregations in areas such as South Africa and the U.S. South.
- Historian’s Office General Church Minutes, Mar. 26, 1847, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, spelling and punctuation modernized.
- “An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization,” 1st Congress, 2nd Sess., Chap. 3 (1790).
- Elise Lemire, “Miscegenation”: Making Race in America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002); Peggy Pascoe, What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Utah outlawed miscegenation between 1888 and 1963. See Patrick Mason, “The Prohibition of Interracial Marriage in Utah, 1888–1963,” Utah Historical Quarterly 76, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 108–131.
- Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 347.
- Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896); Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
- Brigham Young, Speeches Before the Utah Territorial Legislature, Jan. 23 and Feb. 5, 1852, George D. Watt Papers, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, transcribed from Pitman shorthand by LaJean Purcell Carruth; “To the Saints,” Deseret News, April 3, 1852, 42.
- In the same session of the territorial legislature in which Brigham Young announced the priesthood ordination policy, the territorial legislature legalized black “servitude.” Brigham Young and the legislators perceived “servitude” to be a more humane alternative to slavery. Christopher B. Rich Jr., “The True Policy for Utah: Servitude, Slavery, and ‘An Act in Relation to Service,’” Utah Historical Quarterly 80, no.1 (Winter 2012): 54–74.
- David M. Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 178–182, 360n20; Colin Kidd, The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600–2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
- Stephen R. Haynes, Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
- Margaret Blair Young, “‘The Lord’s Blessing Was with Us’: Jane Elizabeth Manning James, 1822–1908,” in Richard E. Turley Jr. and Brittany A. Chapman, eds., Women of Faith in the Latter Days, Volume Two, 1821–1845 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2012), 120–135.
- Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, wrote in 1907 that the belief was “quite general” among Mormons that “the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest.” Yet this belief, he admitted, “is not the official position of the Church, [and is] merely the opinion of men.” Joseph Fielding Smith to Alfred M. Nelson, Jan. 31, 1907, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.
- Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” BYU Studies 47, no. 2 (Spring 2008), 18-20; Marjorie Newton, Southern Cross Saints: The Mormons in Australia (Laie: Hawaii: The Institute for Polynesian Studies, Brigham Young University-Hawaii, 1991), 209-210. Even before this time, President George Albert Smith concluded that the priesthood ban did not apply to Filipino Negritos. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood,” 18-19.
You are about to access: http://byustudies.byu.edu
You are now leaving a website maintained by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We provide the link to this third party's website solely as a convenience to you. The linked site has its own terms of use, privacy policies, and security practices that differ from those on our website. By referring or linking you to this website, we do not endorse or guarantee the content, products, or services offered.
- Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” 21-22.
- Matthew 28:19.
- Mosiah 15:28; 1 Nephi 19:17.
- 2 Nephi 26:23, 28.
- Mark L. Grover, “Mormonism in Brazil: Religion and Dependency in Latin America,” (PhD Dissertation, Indiana University, 1985), 276-278. For a personal account of events in Brazil, see Helvecio Martins with Mark Grover, The Autobiography of Elder Helvecio Martins (Salt Lake City: Aspen Books, 1994), 64-68. For the conversions of Africans, see E. Dale LeBaron, ed., “All Are Alike unto God”: Fascinating Conversion Stories of African Saints (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1990); Pioneers in Africa: An Inspiring Story of Those Who Paved the Way (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Broadcasting, 2003).
- Official Declaration 2.
- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Priesthood Restoration,” Ensign, Oct. 1988, 70, available at ensign.lds.org. The impressions of others who were in the room have been compiled in Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” 54–59.
- Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God” (CES Religious Educator's Symposium, Aug. 18, 1978); available at speeches.byu.edu.
- Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Need for Greater Kindness,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2006, 58–61.
- Acts 10:34.
- 2 Nephi 26:33.
Oh and all the way at the bottom: The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission.
Lest we all be led astray by the learned man.
-
We are clearly not reading the English language the same way:
"Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban"
there is a reason that it is worded this way.....policy not doctrine.
And to those who say that the Lord would not allow his Prophets to lead the church astray as I have said before we were not led astray:
As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations”17 seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions. The Book of Mormon declared that the gospel message of salvation should go forth to “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”18 While there were no limits on whom the Lord invited to “partake of his goodness” through baptism,19 the priesthood and temple restrictions created significant barriers, a point made increasingly evident as the Church spread in international locations with diverse and mixed racial heritages.
-
My point is that they do.
Those who insist that the Church "got it wrong" with regards to blacks and the Priesthood are themselves wrong, and are skirting the filthy edges of apostasy for the sake of their political hobby horse.
We have been down this road, and I take offense to the idea that I may be "skirting" the filthy edges of apostasy, because I am not. We have a disagreement on historical facts, and how God speaks through our leaders and leads our church.
From a historical standpoint denying Blacks the priesthood looks/is perceived as a negative on the church and the supporting "doctrine" that went with that policy.
As previously shown in the most current essay released by the church which we have been over, they have disavowed any policies and doctrinal claims as to the reasons why Blacks were denied the priesthood (they say theories).
You can't get any closer to "we were wrong" than that.
-
By the power of God.
Are you going to answer my question?
I agree, by the power of god, how are we taught that it was translated? Exactly how was it done? Don't play coy or pretend that I'm dodging, when you were taught the lesson in Sunday school just like I was how was it presented?
-
Go to the library at your local chapel, ask for a picture of the translation of the book of Mormon.
Let me know if that jives with either account.
-
Which particular idea was taught to you that is inaccurate?
How did Joseph Smith translate the book of Mormon?
-
omega...
Just 'cause I'm in the mood...point by point...can you answer these things more specifically than you have? Which point is, specifically, not doctrinal?
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
Is there someone else who does?
2.The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
Prior to the restoration of the church they had scriptures. And yet... Clearly the scriptures are insufficient by themselves. By disagreeing you're saying that killing off the prophets would be preferable to losing all scripture. But could not the living prophet, in theory, reproduce the scriptures if necessary? And yet without prophets...Great Apostasy anyone?
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
Haven't you been with those arguing that the new essays are overriding the "mistaken" words of dead prophets? So who's more important? Whoever sides with your personal views?
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
This is canonized (aka Doctrine with a capital D). Disagree if you want. 'Sup to you.
5. 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.
This is also canonized. Meaning scriptural.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
Also canon.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
Well...duh. Maybe not "doctrine". But...duh.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
Also...duh.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
And...also...duh. And canon via scripture.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
It is his prerogative, of course (also duh). Oh...and canon.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
Canon.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
Duh.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
Obviously.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
We've been warned. Oh...and canon.
So...once again...which of these points, just for my entertainment, do you think non-doctrinal?
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
1. Agreed
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
1. One is not more important than the other, our “Doctrine” is found in those sacred works without them we have no foundation.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
1. Yes I agree, current revelation supersedes past revelation, others (TFP) don’t seem to agree
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
1. Agreed, EVEN IF SAID PROPHET MAKES A MISTAKE or was wrong the work of the Lord will press forward
5. 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.
1. This may be true but you will never ever see a current prophet discuss a subject in which he is not well versed or received expert advice on. Brigham Young said that the Sun and the Moon were inhabited……that didn’t turn out for him did it.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
1. There is a process for canonization in our church which finds its way into our book of cannon aka D&C….let’s check when was our last update to D&C?
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
1. Agreed but so does my mom
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
1. Agreed
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
1. “A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such” Joseph Smith. How do we distinguish?
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
1. Ageed he may, but probably shouldn’t
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
1. Agree, humility is the key to eternal progression, interestingly enough the groups of men who lead the church fall into these two categories, either the very learned/very wealthy or a combination of both.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
1. How could he be? Agreed
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
1. Yup no doubt about that
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
1. Agreed when and only when “the Prophet is speaking as the Prophet”.
-
I am willing, one time only, to treat this as a sincere question.
"Blind obedience" has almost no meaning. It is a lie, told by the devilish and those duped by them. If it has any real meaning, its meaning is this: To obey without making any effort to determine whether your obedience is warranted.
What are we to do with any gospel principle? We are to test it. How? By (1) obeying it and (2) praying about it. Both must be followed for the testimony to come to us.
But the foolish will insist that they will not obey until they already know the validity of the commandment. This is contrary to the meaning of both faith and testimony. As Elder Kimball pointed out in the title of another of his books, faith precedes the miracle.
Our leaders want us to follow. The "blindly" part is up to us. You need not follow blindly, if you don't want to. There are two ways not to follow blindly:
- Don't follow
- Follow and, through searching while you follow, come to know that it's the Godly path
If you choose the first, then you're wasting two perfectly good syllables by specifying "blindly." That seemed to be what you were saying. If I misunderstood you, feel free to clarify your meaning.
You misunderstand me. We should be obedient to Gods commands. We show our faith by following his commandments. If we have doubt we should test those commandments as you have described.
When I say Blind obedience I mean specifically that every utterance from the mouth of the prophet should not be considered scripture, that every talk given in a general conference or given by a GA should not be considered doctrine. Quite frankly because it is not.
There is a segment of our church (you know how you are) who will not question anything.....ever......and accept hook and bait that our leaders are infallible, that they do not misspeak (Boyd K Packer), that mistakes have never been made in our history, because God would never allow that. Heaven forbid that you be one of those that think otherwise about the history of the church or that mistakes have been made in the past, because your faith will be called into question.
Do we honestly think that the history of the church as we learned it as a youth (for those that are BIC) or as it is being taught today is correct and accurate? IT'S NOT, in many cases not even close, and we wonder why when essays about polygamy come out people have a "Crisis of faith".
Brigham Young did not lead the church astray when he denied Blacks the priesthood, think about a time frame that goes beyond 100-150 years. The mission of the church has not deviated. Gods work will and has moved forward, we do not understand the time table on which God works.
-
Vort to you truly think that our Leaders want us to follow blindly?
-
The fourteen fundamentals mentioned:
- The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
- The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
- The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
- The prophet will never lead the church astray.
- 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.
- The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
- The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
- The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
- The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
- The prophet may advise on civic matters.
- The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
- The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
- The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
- The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
To which of these do you object?
Most but not all of the points actually,
The content of this talk portrays to the world that as a man the Prophet who at this time was Spencer W Kimball that his words were more important than the standard works they are important than any other prophet in the history of the church or standard works for that matter, that they are more important on any subject than what anybody else has ever said anytime or anywhere, regardless of their expertise; and whose every word could be considered scripture.
I will not follow blindly.
-
https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng
Hey Vort, TFP
I bet you guys think that this talk is Doctrine as well.....
-
What troubles me are religious topics that never get discussed in other Christian faiths because of Mormonism. Polygamy in the Bible, baptism for the dead, degrees of glory, all eschewed to the extreme because they might just give Mormonism some credibility. And historical precidence seems to be trumped by current dogma, which also troubles me.
These items are not discussed because as PC points out there are only very small annotations in the new and old testaments that discuss the subjects. Our circle (LDS) has expanded on those ideas and our understanding through modern revelation make those passages pertinent to our religion and topics of study for us (LDS).
Individually those passages do not give "Mormonism" credibility because our interpretation is different from other christian denominations.
I would rather jog in rush hour traffic than engage with an Evangelical about baptisms for the dead, or the three degrees of glory.
Without the acceptance of modern prophets and relevant revelation the conversation would be pointless.
-
Tell your spouse to lower his/her expectations...that way they will never be disappointed.
I kid
Pale rider has it right:
My wife and I have been married for 33 yrs. We were sealed in the Logan Temple a few months after I returned from my mission. I often get asked how we made it that long and what's the secret. I have told others it wasn't easy. My wife came from a divorced family and I came from a family where my Parents should have divorced. We have always been active in church and paid a full tithe and attended the Temple as often as we were able. We still hold hands when going out in public. We don't critize or put each other down in public. If we do say something that offends the other we will mention it later in private. One other thing and it's important ....you have to find a way to keep dating even after your married. That's right the husband needs to ask his wife out on a date. Needs to happen often, even if it's just for a walk.
All of our kids are out of the house and married and we still date and we still have prayer together and we still read the scriptures together. We are not perfect but we do love and respect each other. -
So, God never has input into mere "policies"? I rather think not. Israel's exodus out of Egypt, when you get right down to it, was a "policy". So was the injunction that the Church gather to Utah; as well as the later injunction that Church members build Zion in their home countries; and no one is all hot-to-trot to excise God's role in those policies--because they aren't politically embarrassing.
Let's cut to the chase. Even accepting, arguendo, that the priesthood ban was mere policy: are you willing to grant that it was inspired policy? Or was the priesthood ban a "drift from [the church's] appointed course"? Because President Uchtdorf claims that the latter would be impossible.
I am not willing to grant that it was inspired policy.
Big picture the ban on Blacks did not lead the church astray it just didn't we have come full circle, that is why it was allowed to happen. we can discuss the historical/political reasons of the time as to why the ban may have been put in place but lets not say that this was inspired.
Reaching out for support after reading the Essays
in Advice Board
Posted
D&C 28:13 explains “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." Since the Church was founded in 1830, new doctrine has been accepted six times. On every occasion, a three-step process was followed to add Official Doctrine: It requires the approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and then it must be accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.
Only then is it binding on the membership of the Church. The change will then be made to the body of accepted (canonized) scriptures. Those occasions are:
Previously posted but you can see that I have included Official Declarations.
I think I have proved my case, Precedent:
1.Law. a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.