The Goal Of Our Faith

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason+Nov 5 2005, 12:12 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-ApostleKnight@Nov 4 2005, 06:46 PM

But to be clear...the Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...

Why is it that mainstream LDS always make this claim? Of course it was an official publication. We're not talking about Orson Pratts "The Seer" here. If there was an official publication of the LDS church from the early 1850's to the end of the 19th century, that was it. It was published simultaneously in England as the JoD and also the talks were published in the Deseret News. I know, I looked them up at Weber State University's library archives.

If you worry about them not being "corrected" sermons, then compare the publications in the Deseret News with the JoD. Guess what? They're identical. No mis-representation there.

Those nut-jobs were really that stupid back then. It's a reality. Move on. Sorry.

←

Lets just say it isn't relevant... it has gone the way of the United Order and Polygamy.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 5 2005, 01:12 AM

Why is it that mainstream LDS always make this claim?  Of course it was an official publication.

←

Okay Jason, let me slip into my semantical suit here and play your game...I was growing a tad bit bored.

The JoD was published, publicly, so it was officially published. There. Agreed.

The LDS church does not claim it is necessary to believe teachings in the JoD to qualify for salvation as it does with the OT, NT, BoM, D&C and PoGP. Do you disagree?

And I DO agree that there were many...absurd...ideas among church members and even leaders back then. But then, the only teachings I'm interested in are those that are necessary for salvation, and I've never read anywhere that unless I profess to agree with the gamut of doctrines espoused in the JoD, I'm hell-bound. By all means, if you can reproduce a statement saying, "All saints must believe the JoD's teachings as official and binding LDS doctrine to be saved," pray do so.

[Jed]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 4 2005, 11:16 PM

Some or much of what you read here may not be orthodox Church practice and belief and may not be an accurate cross-section of Mormonism.

←

Including or excluding yourself?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Jed@Nov 6 2005, 06:53 AM

Including or excluding yourself?

←

What does that have to do with anything? His point was read the Book of Mormon, don't take our word for everything.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 4 2005, 06:38 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Nov 4 2005, 09:27 AM

How is what the “highest official in the Church” says not something the “Church” officially declares?  Or in other words, if the highest official in the Church doesn’t officially speak for the Church, what on Earth does he officially speak for?  And as I said, in addition to the Church, the President of the Church also speaks for the Lord, as His highest representative on Earth.

And btw, this is now the third time that I have tried to explain this to you in this thread, and there have been other threads in which I have tried to explain or expound upon the same idea to you, so if you still don’t get it this time, I really won’t care what you think.

Sometimes I wonder how you can get by in life with the type of thinking skills you demonstrate. I am not asking for an explanation of the significance of the words of prophet speaks. You said "officially declares." If an entity has officially declared something, then there is a declaration. If there is an official declaration, post it and be done with it, else just admit error and be quiet.

And btw, the only respect I really care about is self-respect, and respect from God.

Sorry - not buying it. Most everybody except those with severe and clinical character defects care about what other people think. Why pretend otherwise Ray?

You like to ham it up, don’t you, Snow.  Who is this everybody you are talking about?  Everybody who thinks I am wrong?

While it is true that I don't know what 'everybody' thinks I am completely certain that anybody with a mild amount of intelligence understands that when you say that there is an "official declaration" and then you cannot produce the "official declaration," then you are just blowing smoke... and you, Ray, are just blowing smoke.

As I have just tried to explain, I really don’t care that much about what everybody thinks as long as I know I am right, and even if everybody on Earth decided to think I am wrong about what I think, if I know I am right, I will continue to know I am right, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

←

There you go again... falling back on the old "God revealed it to me." Okay Ray, here's your last chance to PUT UP or SHUT UP. If God revealed to you that the Church "offiicially declares," where did God tell you that you could find the "official declaration?

←

Snow,

The Church as an "entity" or "institution" does not speak, other than through those who are offically appointed to speak in behalf of the entity or institution, and in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the President of the Church is the highest official in the Church who has official authority from the others in the institution to speak in behalf of the institution, through common consent of the others who are offically appointed to represent the Church.

And btw, on some level I know you know this, and I think you'll realize that you know this as soon as you give the matter some more thought while pondering in prayer with the Lord.

[Ray]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight+Nov 4 2005, 06:03 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Nov 4 2005, 07:53 PM

The word "scripture" refers to anything written by inspiration from God.

In one sense.

Or in other words, the scriptures do not need to be "canonized" to be scripture.

Ray, our canon (standard works) is the only official scripture binding on the LDS church. They are the only teachings we must follow or accept as true. The temple recommend interview doesn't ask, "Do you accept as official scripture every word uttered by anyone who was a prophet?" Because we don't have to. If any teaching or scripture is going to be official LDS doctrine, binding on the church, it must be presented to the church membership for a sustaining vote. Of course, if it is submitted, it most likely is official and I'd sustain it. But if any teaching or doctrine, even general conference address, contradicts our canon, official canon, it is not binding on the saints (unless we're talking about the Manifesto on Polygamy or the 1978 manifesto, which were sustained).

But the LDS church has never sustained the JoD as official canon. It may be scripture to you (if inspired...some was, some wasn't), but it is not LDS official canon. It does not portray official LDS doctrine.

So I would never quote from the JoD to explain to a non-member what LDS teachings are. Maybe read it as a curiousity, for historical or background info only. But I would not expect anyone to conform to it's teachings if those teachings contradict our canon. And if they are in harmony with our canon, they're already in our canon so why turn to the JoD at all? That's my point, the JoD is not official scripture of the LDS church.

Does anyone disagree?

←

I'll state what I believe in other words and let you determine whether or not you think my testimony, or what I say, is in agreement with what you have said.

The Journal of Discourses and many other writings from latter day prophets are just as much "scripture" as the writings of former day prophets, even though most of the scriptures from latter day prophets are not included in what has been officially recognized as part of the "standard" or "canon" by which all other scriptures can be judged.

Furthermore, the process of determining what is considered "canon" or "standard" does not determine what is considered "scripture". The process of determining what is considered "canon" or "standard" only determines what we can or should use to determine whether or not the writings of Man are scripture.

Or in other words, all "scripture" is written as Man is moved by the power of the Holy Ghost, and by the power of the Holy Ghost we can also know whether or not what Man has written was written through the power of the Holy Ghost. And to make it easier for those who are not familiar with the Holy Ghost, those who we believe to have been moved by the power of the Holy Ghost have provided a "standard" or "canon" by which other writings can be judged, just as those who we believe to now be moved by the power of the Holy Ghost can continue to provide a "standard" by which other writings can be judged.

For instance, if the General Authorities of the Church were to now officially recognize the Journal of Discourses or other writings of latter day prophets as part of the "standard" works, their official declaration would not imply that they had not formerly regarded those writings as "scripture". Their official declaration would only imply that they had not formerly regarded those writings as part of the "standard" works by which we can judge other writings.

And btw, the Journals of Discourse are just as valuable to me as any of the other scriptures we have in our "standard" works, and I now have a book containing some of the discourses of President Hinckley which I consider to be scripture just as much as I consider the writings of other prophets to be scripture. And in a sense, the words of President Hinckley are even more valuable to me than all the writings of all the Prophets in the past, though I know they were all Prophets.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@ Nov 4 2005, 10:30 PM

1. LDS salvation comes with confession, water baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and successful godly living that progresses to perfection. It's all wrapped up together. If so, is there a point of assurance, when you can say, "I'm saved...I'm successfully born again...my future in the Celestial heaven is assured?"

Yes, there is a point where we can receive an assurance from the Holy Ghost letting us know we are “saved”, that we have successfully been born again, and that our future in the Celestial kingdom is assured… but we [LDS] believe we can all fall from that state of salvation quicker than we achieved it if we are not in harmony with the will of God.

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+ Nov 4 2005, 10:30 PM-->

2. Instead of born again, I will use the term evangelical. Evangelical salvation happens at the point of belief, repentance and confession of sins.

We [LDS] believe salvation happens at that moment too, but it can take a lifetime for some people to confess and fully repent of their sins even though they have already confessed that they have.

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@ Nov 4 2005, 10:30 PM

Water baptism is a testimony to the salvation that has already happened.

We [LDS] also agree that baptism is a testimony or symbolic gesture from an individual to indicate that they have fully confessed and repented of their sins, begun a new life with Jesus Christ as their Lord, pledging to walk in obedience to all of His commandments, one of which is to be baptized by water… but as you may know, some people can bear a false witness or testimony even while truly believing what they are saying or testifying to, so salvation only comes as a person truly does confess and repent of all their sins, instead of when they merely testify that they have.

<!--QuoteBegin-prisonchaplain@ Nov 4 2005, 10:30 PM

The gift of the Holy Ghost is an issue of discussion, but for Pentecostals like myself, it is indeed a gift--not a requirement of salvation. It is "a second work of grace," that brings an added spiritual power and fullness--especially useful for witnessing.

We [LDS] believe the primary gift of Holy Ghost is revelation, which we all need to help us know what is and is not the will of God. Or in other words, the Holy Ghost is a revelator, and to receive the primary gift of the Holy Ghost is to receive revelation, which we all need for salvation because in no other way can we know the will of God.

Btw, if we did not have this gift we would be reliant upon what other people tell us is the will of God, and while it is possible to know the will of God by listening to other people, we believe it is best to know the will of God for ourselves instead of being reliant upon what other people tell us.

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+ Nov 4 2005, 10:30 PM-->

Sanctification (becoming holy unto perfection) is generally understood as progressive. The Holiness branch of our faith believes it is another work of grace, given by the Holy Ghost, that empowers the believer to live righteously.

We [LDS] believe sanctification is the final stage of salvation, and while it does take some people a very long time to progress to the stage where they are willing to confess and repent of their sins, some people achieve it at the instant they first hear the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Or in other words, to be sanctified is to become a true saint, and all latter day saints are Christians.

<!--QuoteBegin-prisonchaplain@ Nov 4 2005, 10:30 PM

3. Evangelicals believe we can say, "I'm saved, I'm heaven bound" from the moment of salvation--after belief, repentance and confession.

We [LDS] believe that too, as I explained in my answers above.

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@ Nov 4 2005, 10:30 PM

The learning to obey Christ's teachings, the seeking after gifts from the Holy Spirit, even water baptism are the fruit of our salvation--not prerequisites.

We [LDS] also believe it takes time to fully learn to become like Christ, but “learning to obey” should not mean “learning to repent”.

Or in other words, as soon as we know the will of God, we should do whatever is required without delay.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 7 2005, 10:50 AM-->

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 4 2005, 06:38 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Nov 4 2005, 09:27 AM

How is what the “highest official in the Church” says not something the “Church” officially declares?  Or in other words, if the highest official in the Church doesn’t officially speak for the Church, what on Earth does he officially speak for?  And as I said, in addition to the Church, the President of the Church also speaks for the Lord, as His highest representative on Earth.

And btw, this is now the third time that I have tried to explain this to you in this thread, and there have been other threads in which I have tried to explain or expound upon the same idea to you, so if you still don’t get it this time, I really won’t care what you think.

Sometimes I wonder how you can get by in life with the type of thinking skills you demonstrate. I am not asking for an explanation of the significance of the words of prophet speaks. You said "officially declares." If an entity has officially declared something, then there is a declaration. If there is an official declaration, post it and be done with it, else just admit error and be quiet.

And btw, the only respect I really care about is self-respect, and respect from God.

Sorry - not buying it. Most everybody except those with severe and clinical character defects care about what other people think. Why pretend otherwise Ray?

You like to ham it up, don’t you, Snow.  Who is this everybody you are talking about?  Everybody who thinks I am wrong?

While it is true that I don't know what 'everybody' thinks I am completely certain that anybody with a mild amount of intelligence understands that when you say that there is an "official declaration" and then you cannot produce the "official declaration," then you are just blowing smoke... and you, Ray, are just blowing smoke.

As I have just tried to explain, I really don’t care that much about what everybody thinks as long as I know I am right, and even if everybody on Earth decided to think I am wrong about what I think, if I know I am right, I will continue to know I am right, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

←

There you go again... falling back on the old "God revealed it to me." Okay Ray, here's your last chance to PUT UP or SHUT UP. If God revealed to you that the Church "offiicially declares," where did God tell you that you could find the "official declaration?

←

Snow,

The Church as an "entity" or "institution" does not speak, other than through those who are offically appointed to speak in behalf of the entity or institution, and in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the President of the Church is the highest official in the Church who has official authority from the others in the institution to speak in behalf of the institution, through common consent of the others who are offically appointed to represent the Church.

And btw, on some level I know you know this, and I think you'll realize that you know this as soon as you give the matter some more thought while pondering in prayer with the Lord.

←

Duh Ray. What a knack you have for stating the incredibly obvious. We know that actual speaking requires a actual human being. What I also know is that one more time you have failed to defend your false assertion or admit your error.

If it were me and I got caught making stuff up, I'd say whoops - sorry I was wrong and move on instead of making myself look foolish for days by obfuscation and diversion.

[Ray]

And again you have shown an inability to connect the dots.

If the Church speaks through individuals who officially represent the Church, and you seem to have just admitted there is no other way for the Church to speak, how is anything the President of the Church declares in his official capacity as President of the Church NOT an official declaration from the Church, considering the fact that the President of the Church has the highest official position in the Church on Earth???

And btw, if you truly believe that what I have said is wrong, please explain how you think what I have said is wrong instead of merely stating that I am wrong to say what I am saying, because at this moment as well as the other moments when I have said what I have said, I believe I am and have been right.

And as I also said before, I do care somewhat about what you and other people think, just not to the point where what you think will alter what I think unless I think what you think has been inspired by God, which I will know for myself when I think that what you have to say was in fact inspired by God.

[Serg]

I agree with you Ray, in D&C says that ANYTHING that the General Authorities speak INSPIRED of the Spirit, shall be His Will, His Word, His Own Voice.

But i see most of you tense, lets treat US brothers as we usually do. But yes, i also agree with ApostleKnight in that not EVRYTHING that they speak is the WORD. A lot of Prophets have said several mistakes. BUT, we still can discern that most of it is true.

We also have a "CANON", that consists of three books: bom, bible, PoGP. Now, we DONT mean by Canon what many christians mean. As to "ended"or "limited" set of writtings, but that until now, they are those officially recognized. The JoD IS the Word of God through the Prophets, for if not , why do we listen to the General Conference? Its Hinkley speaking. That is also the Word, BUT its not in the canon(dont ask me why), maybe cause of all the "personal opinions" of the Leaders that it holds. Most of it IS SCRIPTURE but is not yet CANONIZED entierly because of such things. Is also as the case of Doctrines of salvation. Is the book of a General Authority, or The House of the Lord, or Jesus the Christ, ALL written by assignment from the apostles, but not canonized, cause though is the Word of God, it is also an opinion, a manual given to expand our understanding of the VERY SCRIPTURE!

You see, are class manuals the Word of God?

Well, if it were not, why teach with it?

But though they teach the Word, they are not "scripture" but inspired addings to our knowledge of the Word.

regards,

[Ray]

Serg,

My response to ApostleKnight best explains what I believe and what I know to be true, and if you disagree with me, so be it.

Btw, I'll quote what I said in that response again here:

I'll state what I believe in other words and let you determine whether or not you think my testimony, or what I say, is in agreement with what you have said.

The Journal of Discourses and many other writings from latter day prophets are just as much "scripture" as the writings of former day prophets, even though most of the scriptures from latter day prophets are not included in what has been officially recognized as part of the "standard" or "canon" by which all other scriptures can be judged.

Furthermore, the process of determining what is considered "canon" or "standard" does not determine what is considered "scripture".  The process of determining what is considered "canon" or "standard" only determines what we can or should use to determine whether or not the writings of Man are scripture.

Or in other words, all "scripture" is written as Man is moved by the power of the Holy Ghost, and by the power of the Holy Ghost we can also know whether or not what Man has written was written through the power of the Holy Ghost.  And to make it easier for those who are not familiar with the Holy Ghost, those who we believe to have been moved by the power of the Holy Ghost have provided a "standard" or "canon" by which other writings can be judged, just as those who we believe to now be moved by the power of the Holy Ghost can continue to provide a "standard" by which other writings can be judged.

For instance, if some General Authorities of the Church were to now officially declare that the Journal of Discourses or other writings of latter day prophets are part of the "standard" works, their official declaration would not imply that they had not formerly regarded those writings as "scripture".  Their official declaration would only imply that they had not formerly regarded those writings as part of the "standard" works by which we can judge other writings.

And btw, the Journals of Discourse are just as valuable to me as any of the other scriptures we have in our "standard" works, and I now have a book containing some of the discourses of President Hinckley which I consider to be scripture just as much as I consider the writings of other prophets to be scripture.  And in a sense, the words of President Hinckley are even more valuable to me than all the writings of all the Prophets in the past, though I know they were all Prophets.

[BenRaines]

Here is a list of resources that I consider using when preparing a lesson or a talk.

The chart below shows the curriculum materials to be used by the Melchizedek Priesthood.

1st Sunday

Instruction from Church-approved resources, including:

The Scriptures

Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 2: Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders (35209), especially sections 1, 7, 8, 9, and 16

Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders' Guidebook (31178)

Church magazines or the monthly First Presidency Message

Family Guidebook (31180)

Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood, Part A (31111)

Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood, Part B (31112)

Gospel Principles (31110) or Gospel Fundamentals (31129)

A Member’s Guide to Temple and Family History Work (34697)

2nd & 3rd Sundays Teachings of Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay

4th Sunday Teachings for Our Time (see November Ensign or Liahona)

5th Sunday Topics and resources determined by the bishopric or branch presidency

You will notice that it does not include Mormon Doctrine, Journal of Discourses, books by Hugh Nibley, Cleon Skousen. I read them. I enjoy some of the insight they provide but do not use them as a teaching tool. We are to couch our teaching in the scriptures and in the church approved curriculum.

[Serg]

Ray no, i do not disagree with you, i INDEED agree!

I was telling that to ApostleKnight, but adressed it to you because i was talking to you first to tell you upto where i agree with you!

Best regards pal,

[Ray]

Originally posted by BenRaines@Nov 8 2005, 01:05 PM

Here is a list of resources that I consider using when preparing a lesson or a talk.

The chart below shows the curriculum materials to be used by the Melchizedek Priesthood.

1st Sunday     

Instruction from Church-approved resources, including:

The Scriptures

Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 2: Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders (35209), especially sections 1, 7, 8, 9, and 16

Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders' Guidebook (31178)

Church magazines or the monthly First Presidency Message

Family Guidebook (31180)

Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood, Part A (31111)

Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood, Part B (31112)

Gospel Principles (31110) or Gospel Fundamentals (31129)

A Member’s Guide to Temple and Family History Work (34697)

2nd & 3rd Sundays     Teachings of Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay

4th Sunday     Teachings for Our Time (see November Ensign or Liahona)

5th Sunday     Topics and resources determined by the bishopric or branch presidency

You will notice that it does not include Mormon Doctrine, Journal of Discourses, books by Hugh Nibley, Cleon Skousen.  I read them.  I enjoy some of the insight they provide but do not use them as a teaching tool.  We are to couch our teaching in the scriptures and in the church approved curriculum.

←

I agree that we should limit ourselves to Church-approved curriculum, but if we were allowed to use all of the scriptures I would consider myself to be allowed to use every word spoken by a prophet of God when speaking about what he knew to be true, and I would consider every one of those words to be scripture.

But I also understand that when the brethren refer to the "scriptures", they are usually referring to the words we have in our "canon" or "standard" works, and they are simply being humble when not telling us we should also listen to them... aside from telling us that we should follow the Prophet.

For instance, did you know that when the apostle Paul wrote what we have in the New Testament, he was referring to some other writings as "scripture"??? Yet we include his words in what we refer to as the "standard" works, even though they were "scripture" from the first instance he wrote them.

Anyway, just understand that I understand the word "scripture" refers to anything Man writes through inspiration from God, even though the word "scriptures" can also refer to only the scriptures we have in our "standard" works.

[Jed]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight+Nov 6 2005, 09:05 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jed@Nov 6 2005, 06:53 AM

Including or excluding yourself?

←

What does that have to do with anything? His point was read the Book of Mormon, don't take our word for everything.

←

Thank you Snow Jr. And to think I thought you both pointless.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jed+Nov 8 2005, 04:30 PM-->

Originally posted by ApostleKnight@Nov 6 2005, 09:05 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Jed@Nov 6 2005, 06:53 AM

Including or excluding yourself?

←

What does that have to do with anything? His point was read the Book of Mormon, don't take our word for everything.

←

Thank you Snow Jr. And to think I thought you both pointless.

←

sick...

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 8 2005, 09:05 AM

And again you have shown an inability to connect the dots.

If the Church speaks through individuals who officially represent the Church, and you seem to have just admitted there is no other way for the Church to speak, how is anything the President of the Church declares in his official capacity as President of the Church NOT an official declaration from the Church, considering the fact that the President of the Church has the highest official position in the Church on Earth???

And btw, if you truly believe that what I have said is wrong, please explain how you think what I have said is wrong instead of merely stating that I am wrong to say what I am saying, because at this moment as well as the other moments when I have said what I have said, I believe I am and have been right.

And as I also said before, I do care somewhat about what you and other people think, just not to the point where what you think will alter what I think unless I think what you think has been inspired by God, which I will know for myself when I think that what you have to say was in fact inspired by God.

←

Stop pretending to be an buffoon Ray. If there really is an official declaration as you claimed, then post the declaration. No one need explain that you are wrong because you falsely stated that the there was an official declaration when in fact you can find no such declaration.

You were either lying or fabricating stuff up out of thin air with reckless disregard for truth. That is an embarrassment and a poor example of a Church membership. If it were me, I would have apologized and corrected my error a long time ago and then picked an argument I could factually support.

[Serg]

I still cant reconcile the WAY some members EXPRESS what they think. Not that expressing it is worse than thinking it first, but it sure leaves a bitter aftertaste in most of their posts. Why brothers would we speak so harsh to each other? We tend to act as if we know all, and are not humble enough to recognize when not.

Its not to you Ray or Apostleknight, you i think are pretty councious people, and Please, and many more, but some seem to be SO different in behavior than what it would be a member, and the big part is that they "ARE" members...This not meant to JUDGE but as a constructive criticism if accepted humbly. :)

Best regards,

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Serg@Nov 9 2005, 06:47 AM

I still cant reconcile the WAY some members EXPRESS what they think. Not that expressing it is worse than thinking it first, but it sure leaves a bitter aftertaste in most of their posts. Why brothers would we speak so harsh to each other? We  tend to act as if we know all, and are not humble enough to recognize when not.

        Its not to you Ray or Apostleknight, you i think are pretty councious people, and Please, and many more, but some seem to be SO different in behavior than what it would be a member, and the big part is that they "ARE" members...This not meant to JUDGE but as a constructive criticism if accepted humbly.  :)

        Best regards,

←

Thank you for including me on the good list... I have to agree... snow is mean all the time... not just when he or the church are attacked...

[Snow]

Originally posted by Serg@Nov 9 2005, 04:47 AM

I still cant reconcile the WAY some members EXPRESS what they think. Not that expressing it is worse than thinking it first, but it sure leaves a bitter aftertaste in most of their posts. Why brothers would we speak so harsh to each other? We  tend to act as if we know all, and are not humble enough to recognize when not.

        Its not to you Ray or Apostleknight, you i think are pretty councious people, and Please, and many more, but some seem to be SO different in behavior than what it would be a member, and the big part is that they "ARE" members...This not meant to JUDGE but as a constructive criticism if accepted humbly.  :)

        Best regards,

←

You mean me, Snow, don't you Serg. You are not talking abouit some nameless entitiy Why not say what you mean?

What on earth makes you think that I think I "know all?" I certainly don't and never pretend to. I am silent on a good many things - often because I have no knowledge of them. I always am ready to learn something new.

In this case, to which you are passively-agressively referring, I have correctly observed that Ray has made a statement that when challenged he cannot/will not support, obfuscates all over the place, won't admit he made it up and plays dumbs about it. Now you would have me ignore it and act like his doing so is not a poor example but why should I do that? So you can feel like we are all warm and fuzzy towards each other? Wouldn't it be better for him to post honestly like I have called for? Then none of this bluster you don't like would have been even been thought of.

I'll take honesty and correctness over faux sweetness anytime.

[Ray]

Heh, okay, let’s try another approach:

I originally declared:

Originally posted by Ray+Oct 31 2005, 02:24 PM-->

Red,

The Church officially declares that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were [and continue to be] prophets of God, and the Church also officially declares that what they taught was inspired or revealed to them by our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost.  You simply do not believe those ideas were inspired by Jesus Christ, just as you also do not believe those persons were [and are] prophets of God…

When you responded to me by declaring:

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 31 2005, 08:15 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Oct 31 2005, 01:24 PM

The Church officially...officially declares that what they taught was inspired or revealed to them by our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost. 

←

That's a misleading statement. The [Church] officially declares that the canon is inspired of God and so, logically anything that they taught that is included in the canon is considered inspired but the Church does not declare that everything they taught was inspireded or revealed.

Of course, if it is "official" as you say, then post the official declaration and there won't be an argument.

←

When I then responded to you by declaring:

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 1 2005, 12:44 PM

I don’t recall the specific words, but one reference that comes to mind is from a President of the Church who stated that prophets don’t need to preface a statement with “thus saith the Lord” in order to have their statement regarded as scripture.  And since a President of the Church is officially recognized as the highest official in the Church on Earth at any given time, that’s officially enough for me.

Another reference that comes to mind is from Doctrine & Covenants section 50, where it says that everything that leads to do good and believe in Christ is inspired of God… and although some people think some of what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said went way out on a limb in leading people to do good and believe in Christ, I personally testify that I have been brought closer to Christ through the things they have said.

←

So there.

You now have a referral [although imperfect] to an official declaration from a President of the Church, and also a declaration from me, as I make my declaration in my official capacity as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

And btw, if you still feel the need to argue about this, you may argue about this with somebody else.

[Ray]

For anyone interested, I found the quote I was referring to. It came from President Benson’s message entitled ‘Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet’, given February 26th, 1980 at BYU, while he was currently serving in the Quorum of the Twelve.

While discussing what he called the “sixth” fundamental, he said:

Originally posted by Ezra Taft Benson

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

Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.)

And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states:

“Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed.”

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

p.s. See attached for the full discourse.

[john doe]

Originally posted by Jed+Nov 8 2005, 06:10 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 8 2005, 04:34 PM

sick...

←

How anyone, Mormon or not, can put up with the backbiting and instantaneous judgements which permeate this "religious" site is totally beyond me. "Sick" actually sums it up quite well. Thank you.

←

You have been a member of this forum for what, 4 days? And so quickly you have formed an instantaneous judgement of someone else here? And this concept is still beyond your understanding? Try again. Stick around before you make such snap judgements of others, you may surprise yourself and find your original judgements of others to be wrong. Or not.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jed@Nov 8 2005, 05:10 PM

How anyone, Mormon or not, can put up with the backbiting and instantaneous judgements which permeate this "religious" site is totally beyond me.  "Sick" actually sums it up quite well.  Thank you.

←

Can you say HYPOCRISY? I bet you can my little dumpling.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Please@Nov 9 2005, 07:38 AM

Thank you for including me on the good list...   I have to agree... snow is mean all the time... not just when he or the church are attacked...

←

Wrong - I am only agtagonistic towards irrationality, bigotry, dishonesty and ignorance with sometimes a slight negative nod towards supercilliousness (not my own) and Celine Dion fans.