"The Lord won't let the Prophet lead the church astray."

[Just_A_Guy]

I think there is more to this than meets the eye. A little background, when the Church was first formed political and religious conventions were extremely common. The Revolution was started at political conventions. In fact, up until prob. about the 1970s attending mass meetings and state conventions to elect delegates for the US Presidency was very common. I read an LDS General Conference talk by I believe Pres. Kimball published in the 70s who advocated that members attend their local mass meeting (it was national election time) to elect delegates. Voting in this country used to very personal and done mostly through delegates elected at conventions.

Interestingly, there's one state in the union that still does these neighborhood party caucuses--and it's Utah. And the First Presidency still sends out the letters encouraging people to attend.

[yjacket]

Interestingly, there's one state in the union that still does these neighborhood party caucuses--and it's Utah. And the First Presidency still sends out the letters encouraging people to attend.

Every State still does them, they are just not advertised. That's really cool the 1st Pres. sends out letters encouraging people to attend in Utah. I don't believe we've ever gotten one of those on the East Coast.

[Just_A_Guy]

Really? There's a movement afoot in Utah to end the system; and they're claiming that no one else does them anymore.

[Praetorian_Brow]

I don't believe in the theory of divine right and I don't believe all callings are divinely inspired. It amuses me that people have to volunteer first to be a missionary, then get called as if its some divine miracle after the fact.

I also do believe in the vagaries of ambition, which means our church is not devoid of that, no matter the rationalization that some divine intervention will occur when someone abuses their authority. With money, comes greed and the church is run like a business.

Emperors New Clothes is a fine example of what rarely happens in a defined power structure.

All of the above does not dampen my respect for the spiritual orientation of the church, or some of its true members of compassionate faith, nor does it lessen my belief that the gospel is to be applied for the betterment of all. My position reminds me of how quickly good intentions become corrupt goals.

[ElectofGod]

Incorrect

Official Declaration 1

As someone else pointed out in another thread, Just because something is sustained and voted in as Dcotrine (common consent) does not make it truth or doctrine. It may be binding because we accept something, but it does not make it binding to God.

[yjacket]

Really? There's a movement afoot in Utah to end the system; and they're claiming that no one else does them anymore.

Wow. No the convention system is still alive. Getting off topic a bit, the R candidate for governor of VA this election cycle was chosen at the R State Convention this past year. Several states political parties choose who they will run for Senate and Congress at political Congressional District and State Conventions.

And the Presidential candidate is chosen by the National Convention, not by popular vote. If enough delegates at the National Convention decided to revolt against the popular vote choice, they could do it.

I actually like the convention system and wish it would come back into prominence . . . but that won't be happening anytime soon.

[estradling75]

As someone else pointed out in another thread, Just because something is sustained and voted in as Dcotrine (common consent) does not make it truth or doctrine. It may be binding because we accept something, but it does not make it binding to God.

Be that as it may... It is entirely incorrect to describe it as an off the cuff remark to a kid. While someone might decide to reject the message they need to do so with a correct understanding of weight it is given by the church.

[Just_A_Guy]

Wow. No the convention system is still alive. Getting off topic a bit, the R candidate for governor of VA this election cycle was chosen at the R State Convention this past year. Several states political parties choose who they will run for Senate and Congress at political Congressional District and State Conventions.

And the Presidential candidate is chosen by the National Convention, not by popular vote. If enough delegates at the National Convention decided to revolt against the popular vote choice, they could do it.

I actually like the convention system and wish it would come back into prominence . . . but that won't be happening anytime soon.

No, no, I knew the conventions still happen; I was talking about the neighborhood caucuses leading up to the conventions. Sorry for not being more clear.

[Just_A_Guy]

As someone else pointed out in another thread, Just because something is sustained and voted in as Dcotrine (common consent) does not make it truth or doctrine. It may be binding because we accept something, but it does not make it binding to God.

If you're thinking of the same "other thread" that I am: it may be worth noting that no one said that false doctrine gets canonized all willy-nilly. The position asserted was that when something is canonized, it represents the best information available to us at the time of canonization; but that it may still be superseded or corrected by supplemental revelation to those whose stewardship it is to receive such revelation.

[ElectofGod]

If you're thinking of the same "other thread" that I am: it may be worth noting that no one said that false doctrine gets canonized all willy-nilly. The position asserted was that when something is canonized, it represents the best information available to us at the time of canonization; but that it may still be superseded or corrected by supplemental revelation to those whose stewardship it is to receive such revelation.

But if we wait for someone else to correct something that is pertinent for our salvation, we will be damned. Because thsoe stakes will **** (d word) us.

Prophets teach us to all be prophets. Not to wait upon them. Or need them. Or wait upon them to correct something. Or anything else. They point to Christ, if we point to them in ANY way. Our minds become darkened, we are setting them up for idol worship.

Joseph said,

There are three grand orders of priesthood referred to here. 1st. The King of Shiloam. (Salem) had power and authority over that of Abraham, holding the key and the power of endless life. Angels desire to look into it, but they have set up too many stakes. God cursed the children of Israel because they would not receive the last law from Moses.

[Stakes, or traditions of our fathers, or false beliefs, incorrect ideas, incorrect doctrine, inability to rend the veil of unbelief... They can't look into it

The sacrifice required of Abraham in the offering up of Isaac, shows that if a man would attain to the keys of the kingdom of an endless life; he must sacrifice all things. When God offers a blessing or knowledge to a man, and he refuses to receive it, he will be damned. The Israelites prayed that God would speak to Moses and not to them; in consequence of which he cursed them with a carnal law.

Three Orders of Priesthood

Joseph Smith

August 27, 1843

The following are the various accounts of this very important sermon given by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

History of the Church, (5:554-556) Version

This notion that,

revelation to those whose stewardship it is to receive such revelation.

Is the worse, it not saying, Moses speak to me. Its saying, if this is wrong, The prophet will fix it, so I wil not going to bother correcting it myself, asking God, and I will tell others, STOP saying something is wrong, stop fault finding, God will correct it. If it doesn't its correct for our times!

I don't want moses to speak for me. I don't want monson to speak for me. I don't want to speak for any of them.

But I will say God will not correct things until someone asks the questions. Its becoming more evident that people are so founded on this doctrine, If it needs fixing his prophets will do it. Or God won't let us be led astray so don't even worry about it, we don't have to worry about anything. All is well! God will protect us even if we are accepting many traditions of our fathers.

My point? His prophets don't correct everything, nor will, its our responsibility to correct things.

"I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality" --Bruce R. McConkie

Indeed, it is part of our shifting process of mortality.

[ElectofGod]

Well, as soon as I posted I was led to the full quote by McConkie. I may post this over in the LOF thread.

Bruce R. McConkie

This puts me in mind of Paul's statement: "There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Cor. 11:19.) I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned. If that belief is on basic and fundamental things, it will lead us astray and we will lose our souls. This is why Nephi said: "And all those who preach false doctrines, . . . wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!: (2 Ne. 28:15.) This clearly means that people who teach false doctrine in the fundamental and basic things will lose their souls. The nature and kind of being that God is, is one of these fundamentals. I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham Young also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in his instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will **** us.

Ouch. Ouch. Ouch. Wont' **** him but it will us!

So it is with everything...

Back to the OP, The manifesto.

"President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

"'I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.'

"The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

"Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890."

Edited November 9, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Anddenex]

But if we wait for someone else to correct something that is pertinent for our salvation, we will be damned. Because thsoe stakes will **** (d word) us.

This is somewhat correct. The Lord revealeth his secrets through his prophets. A person better be sure they are correct when seeking to correct the Lord's anointed, otherwise they will find themselves kicking against the pricks -- which in turn will turn to their damnation if they do not repent.

There is a balance between stewardship and correction. I truly feel sorry people who think they are smarter than the Lord's anointed.

Prophets teach us to all be prophets. Not to wait upon them. Or need them. Or wait upon them to correct something. Or anything else. They point to Christ, if we point to them in ANY way. Our minds become darkened, we are setting them up for idol worship.

Partially correct. We have factions within the LDS because people did not wait upon the Lord through his living prophets. They teach us to trust in God. The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood directly contradicts the idea of not receiving his prophets, his servants, and their stewardship.

If people actually waited upon the Lord through the proper channels we wouldn't have the FLDS, the RLDS, or any other faction that stemmed from the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Prophets do teach us to be prophets with respect to stewardship and the Lord's anointed. The Lord established a governing body for a reason, without such, the Church would have fallen apart a long time ago because too many people already think they know of themselves -- way to much.

Is the worse, it not saying, Moses speak to me. Its saying, if this is wrong, The prophet will fix it, so I wil not going to bother correcting it myself, asking God, and I will tell others, STOP saying something is wrong, stop fault finding, God will correct it. If it doesn't its correct for our times!

I don't want moses to speak for me. I don't want monson to speak for me. I don't want to speak for any of them.

I irony of this remark is even within one of the quotes you mention you share, "God cursed the children of Israel because they would not receive the last law from Moses." The children of Israel were also cursed because they thought they knew of themselves and would not receive from Moses the last law he provided them. If an individual wants to steady the ark, I suppose that is up to them, their agency.

Respecting the stewardship a person has been called to is very different than saying "Moses speak to me" as you have suggested JAG was representing. JAGs comment was pretty clear with regard to respecting stewardship, not to not think for yourself.

[yjacket]

No, no, I knew the conventions still happen; I was talking about the neighborhood caucuses leading up to the conventions. Sorry for not being more clear.

Oh, no worries. Just about every state that I know of has local neighborhood conventions (or caucuses) that elect delegates to go to county conventions to elect delegates to go to state and district conventions. A few states elect their delegates to the state/district conventions by the primary ballot (i.e. you vote on the primary ballot for delegates). I'm not sure how you'd choose who goes to the state conventions otherwise . . .

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with Anddenex, and would further note the gross intellectual dishonesty in suggesting that Elder McConkie, of all people, would condone the obvious suspicion and contempt you demonstrate for the modern LDS Church, its membership, and its leadership. And incidentally, that letter of his that you quote, referring to Brigham Young? The "heresy" being discussed is the Adam-God theory, which was never canonized.

But I will say God will not correct things until someone asks the questions.

A pity that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are so full of such incurious ninnies.

Its becoming more evident that people are so founded on this doctrine, If it needs fixing his prophets will do it. Or God won't let us be led astray so don't even worry about it, we don't have to worry about anything. All is well! God will protect us even if we are accepting many traditions of our fathers.

The fact that the Church is being led in accordance with God's will doesn't mean all is well, as anyone who gave more to an a passing listen to General Conference understands. And I actually agrees with you that many Mormons are actively being led astray by people who should know better.

[ElectofGod]

I agree with Anddenex, and would further note the gross intellectual dishonesty in suggesting that Elder McConkie, of all people, would condone the obvious suspicion and contempt you demonstrate for the modern LDS Church, its membership, and its leadership. And incidentally, that letter of his that you quote, referring to Brigham Young? The "heresy" being discussed is the Adam-God theory, which was never canonized.

Just when I thought we had so much in common after your post in eternal lives thread. I will assume we just like to discuss our disagreements more than agreements :). My suspicion and content? Oh please, you always condemn my quotes. Yet they said it.

I have no content or suspicion about the LDS church. I am a proud member of the LDS church. Perhaps the itnent of my posts are coming off differently than the real intents. That is my fault. My posts are too long, I try to shorten them.

But you missed the whole point of that quote, "we wil be condemned for teaching false doctrines and we will be damned for not accepting true doctrines" Its not to condemn brigham young. McConkie said, he went on to eternal glory... I hope he is right.

Abinadi,

26 I say unto you, wo be unto you for perverting the ways of the Lord! For if ye understand these things ye have not taught them; therefore, ye have perverted the ways of the Lord.

Just by not teaching truth that is required to connect to heavenly father you are perverting the ways of the lord. This is why I seek to declare the truth required to connect to heaven. I may fail miserably, say my own false teachings worse than Brigham young, and many others but I am trying.

A pity that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are so full of such incurious ninnies.

All I know is the word Gentiles in the book of mormon refers to us the LDS church. The prophecies are about ALL of us. Written for us, to help us come out of condemnation.

The fact that the Church is being led in accordance with God's will doesn't mean all is well, as anyone who gave more to an a passing listen to General Conference understands. And I actually agrees with you that many Mormons are actively being led astray by people who should know better.

I listened to GC and the Lord reconfirmed to me we are still under condemnation (President Benson) and drifting farther into Darkness and under the bondage of sin (the effects of those under condemnation). Still the Lords church, but we are passing ripe for destruction. Thus why "upon my house shall it begin... and shall go forth". I will wait upon the Lord. It will begin upon His house, those who "have professed to know my name but don't".

As for being led astray, To every man his own to accept light and truth. That man is pure light and truth. He is either an antiChrist or a true servant of the Lord. (not the president, we are all to be servants)

Here you go, you will enjoy this read.

By their fruits shall you know them.

The Second Comforter | My experience with the Second Comforter

That which is evil cannot bring forth bad fruits.

Now I expect the comments about... begin

Edited November 10, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Just_A_Guy]

Just when I thought we had so much in common after your post in eternal lives thread. I will assume we just like to discuss our disagreements more than agreements :). My suspicion and content? Oh please, you always condemn my quotes. Yet they said it.

Ah, the typical refuge of apostates and antis. Context is nothing. Doesn't matter what the Mormon leader obviously meant--he said it!!!!

If you don't want me to disagree with your use of quotations, quit using them dishonestly.

But you missed the whole point of that quote, "we wil be condemned for teaching false doctrines and we will be damned for not accepting true doctrines" Its not to condemn brigham young.

The way I see it, there was no reason for bringing that up in this discussion unless you wanted us to think that the Church has canonized false doctrine.

Just by not teaching truth that is required to connect to heavenly father you are perverting the ways of the lord.

You have no contempt or suspicion for the Church; you just think that they're perverting the ways of the Lord.

This is why I seek to declare the truth required to connect to heaven.

Connecting people to heaven does not entail alienating them from prophets and apostles.

All I know is the word Gentiles in the book of mormon refers to us the LDS church. The prophecies are about ALL of us. Written for us, to help us come out of condemnation.

And I know that in the last days even the very elect will get deceived. And I know that the proximate source of your arguments, Denver Snuffer, has engaged in deception about the historical record; for which he has been severed from the ordinances of the Lord's house. Read the link I gave you.

I am not, and never have, argued against seeking the Second Comforter. Indeed, Snuffer's persuasiveness comes from the fact that he takes something very precious and sublime, and then tries to make his hearers believe that the Lord's true stewards are trying to keep it from them while he himself is the bringer of enlightenment. It's the same tactic Lucifer deployed in the Garden.

As for being led astray, To every man his own to accept light and truth. That man is pure light and truth. He is either an antiChrist or a true servant of the Lord. (not the president, we are all to be servants)

Here you go, you will enjoy this read.

By their fruits shall you know them.

The Second Comforter | My experience with the Second Comforter

That which is evil cannot bring forth bad fruits.

Is that the Daniel Rogers who's a mod over at LDS Freedom Forum, who runs a closed forum just for Snuffer acolytes and tries to conceal their activities from the general authorities? That Daniel Rogers?

I have no business saying what he has or hasn't seen. But I can point out the misdirections he deploys. For example, he writes "Even followers of true prophets find themselves in the telestial kingdom (see D&C 76:98-101)." But you follow the link and read, " But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant."

What is it about seeing the Lord, that gives one such a propensity thereafter to cite scripture inaccurately and/or dishonestly?

That which is good, cannot bring forth evil fruits. So far the only fruits of Snufferism I've seen are rebellion, carping, fault-finding, lies, sign-seeking, grandstanding, and eventual excommunication. Snufferites spend a lot of time with 2 Peter 1. They should look a little more closely at the next chapter.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ElectofGod]

Ah, the typical refuge of apostates and antis. Context is nothing. Doesn't matter what the Mormon leader obviously meant--he said it!!!!

If you don't want me to disagree with your use of quotations, quit using them dishonestly.

The way I see it, there was no reason for bringing that up in this discussion unless you wanted us to think that the Church has canonized false doctrine.

The point was that , yes the church can canonize misleading doctrine.

So I am apostate for thinking this phrase is misleading.

But you are not for thinking LOF which WERE also canonized are misleading?

Only because a committee around 86 years later "figured it out". Its only been 120 years. I have faith the Lord will reveal it in due time collectively. I believe the Lord has allowed this teaching to be taught for the shifting process ahead. Again why I used that McConkie quote.

*sigh*

You have no contempt or suspicion for the Church; you just think that they're perverting the ways of the Lord.

Connecting people to heaven does not entail alienating them from prophets and apostles.

The rest of this is entirely false against me. I will not or do not want to alienate anyone from the prophets or the apostles.

*sigh too much contention*

And I know that in the last days even the very elect will get deceived. And I know that the proximate source of your arguments, Denver Snuffer, has engaged in deception about the historical record; for which he has been severed from the ordinances of the Lord's house. Read the link I gave you.

I am not, and never have, argued against seeking the Second Comforter. Indeed, Snuffer's persuasiveness comes from the fact that he takes something very precious and sublime, and then tries to make his hearers believe that the Lord's true stewards are trying to keep it from them while he himself is the bringer of enlightenment. It's the same tactic Lucifer deployed in the Garden.

Is that the Daniel Rogers who's a mod over at LDS Freedom Forum, who runs a closed forum just for Snuffer acolytes and tries to conceal their activities from the general authorities? That Daniel Rogers?

I have no business saying what he has or hasn't seen. But I can point out the misdirections he deploys. For example, he writes "Even followers of true prophets find themselves in the telestial kingdom (see D&C 76:98-101)." But you follow the link and read, " But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant."

What is it about seeing the Lord, that gives one such a propensity thereafter to cite scripture inaccurately and/or dishonestly?

Says who? Because you KNOW what all the scriptures say? Your always so confident your right in how you see things. You skipped, Also you skipped its a three fold concept... You point out ONE phrase and skip the rest.

99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

They accepted prophets including "Christ". Mathew 7:22

King James Bible

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME,...'

Men can work miracles and not be allowed in the presence of God.

That which is good, cannot bring forth evil fruits. So far the only fruits of Snufferism I've seen are rebellion, carping, fault-finding, lies, sign-seeking, grandstanding, and eventual excommunication. Snufferites spend a lot of time with 2 Peter 1. They should look a little more closely at the next chapter.

Anyways,, back to the OP.

[Just_A_Guy]

The point was that , yes the church can canonize misleading doctrine.

So I am apostate for thinking this phrase is misleading.

But you are not for thinking LOF which WERE also canonized are misleading?

"Misleading"? What wordsmithery! My position is, and always has been, that the Lectures on Faith represented the best revelation the Church had at the time and that any errors in them were the result of the declarant's ignorance, not rejection, of the fullness of the truth. Your position seems to be that Woodruff's position was wrong from the get-go, presumably knowingly, and represented a step backwards for the Church.

And it's probably of some import that Woodruff's statement is still canon; whereas the LoF aren't.

The rest of this is entirely false against me. I will not or do not want to alienate anyone from the prophets or the apostles.

You already said that the Church is not teaching the "whole truth" (as you deem it to be), and allege further that failing to teach that "whole truth" is a perversion of the way of the Lord. To make an accusation like that against the Church while maintaining that your words are neither intended to, or have the effect of, alienating anyone from the prophets and apostles who lead said Church; is either the height of naïvety or the height of duplicity.

*sigh too much contention*

That's kind of passive-aggressive, don't you think? I mean, if A states that B's wife is a fornicator, and B makes a spirited defense of her character, can A just end the discussion by sighing and saying "too much contention", as if it's all B's fault? Because that's kind of what you're doing here.

Says who? Because you KNOW what all the scriptures say? Your always so confident your right in how you see things. You skipped, Also you skipped its a three fold concept... You point out ONE phrase and skip the rest.

99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

They accepted prophets including "Christ". Mathew 7:22

They say they are of some prophets, but they didn't receive them. Of course neither you, nor Rogers, made that distinction. Because contra verse 101's clear injunction to receive the prophets, you guys are all about ignoring the prophets and apostles in favor of our looking directly to Christ--provided, of course, we do so only through the lens that Denver Snuffer provides.

EoG, I'm begging you: snap out of it. Read the Mormon Interpreter's two-part series on Passing the Heavenly Gift. Look at all the times Snuffer distorts, or flat-out lies, about the historical record. Think about Snuffer himself. Does he act charitable? Remember when he questioned the "testicular fortitude" of those who disagreed with him? Remember his blog post this week where, rather than address Greg Smith head on, he dismisses a peer-reviewed analysis as a "rant" and played his little Warren Jeffs-esque "pray for him, folks" mind game? Remember when, last month, he suggested that his stake president's going forward with his excommunication was the result of the president's trying to "get ahead" in the Church, rather than a sincere disagreement with Snuffer's ideas? Remember how, a couple of years ago, Snuffer criticized CES employees who go on their fireside tours and swore up and down that you'd never catch him doing anything like that? (Where's Snuffer's next lecture--Idaho Falls? Hard to keep up with the guy these days.)

Snuffer has used the most sacred experience the Lord has to offer us in mortality--an experience that is wholly attainable through adhering to orthodox Church teaching--as bait to get you into his path. When that path has been fully revealed, I suspect you'll find you don't much like where it has taken you.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ElectofGod]

All you do is twist my words.

You have plenty of flaws in your comments too. LOF done in ignorance? Theres a good one. Anything to suit your paradigm. How do you know? You don't. How will we ever know? Who knows? Lets just pick an answer that feels gooooooood. I never said the manifesto was wrong. I just said that ONE phrase was misleading.

I am exactly where the Lord wants me to do. He led me here. There is nothing to snap out of.

BTW Greg smith the reviewer of visions of glory?

This?

Spencer’s Visions of Glory | FairMormon

Sorry but this review was awful.

[Just_A_Guy]

All you do is twist my words.

You have plenty of flaws in your comments too. LOF done in ignorance? Theres a good one.

Except that isn't what I said. I said any errors within it would have been because the authors were ignorant of the fullness at that time.

Anything to suit your paradigm. How do you know? You don't. How will we ever know? Who knows? Lets just pick an answer that feels gooooooood.

I know because I can read. I can read Lecture 5 and compare it with D&C 130. They say two different things re the composition of the Godhead--we've been through this before. The only reason you deny the discrepancy is because you've been taught by Snuffer (who, in turn, has been taught by the FLDS theologians he's so fond of, the citations to whom you've previously defended on LDS.net) to pin everything that's wrong with the Church on big, bad Heber J. Grant.

I never said the manifesto was wrong. I just said that ONE phrase was misleading.

What you said was, "Just because something is sustained and voted in as Do[c]trine (common consent) does not make it truth or doctrine. It may be binding because we accept something, but it does not make it binding to God."

I am exactly where the Lord wants me to do. He led me here. There is nothing to snap out of.

Said Saul of Tarsus, when he supported the stoning of Stephen . . .

BTW Greg smith the reviewer of visions of glory?

This?

Spencer’s Visions of Glory | FairMormon

Sorry but this review was awful.

What do you mean by "awful", specifically, aside from "dared to question postulates I never questioned" and "reached different conclusions than I did"?

Edited November 11, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ElectofGod]

Except that isn't what I said. I said any errors within it would have been because the authors were ignorant of the fullness at that time.

I know because I can read. I can read Lecture 5 and compare it with D&C 130. They say two different things re the composition of the Godhead--we've been through this before. The only reason you deny the discrepancy is because you've been taught by Snuffer (who, in turn, has been taught by the FLDS theologians he's so fond of, the citations to whom you've previously defended on LDS.net) to pin everything that's wrong with the Church on big, bad Heber J. Grant.

Defended? Oh man. I said NOTHING of the sort!Twisting twisting twisting.

"I actually find there are some truths openly taught in the break off branches of the LDS church that are not public in our church since the early days. Of course there is much twisting of the truth too

Basically, there is TRUTH in EVERY RELIGION. Muslims, budhism. Wow, defended?

What you said was, "Just because something is sustained and voted in as Do[c]trine (common consent) does not make it truth or doctrine. It may be binding because we accept something, but it does not make it binding to God."

Actually YOU said that too.

Truth is truth, and inaccuracy is inaccuracy, regardless of whether mankind chooses to canonize a written document containing that truth/inaccuracy and regardless of whether someone chooses to call it "doctrine".http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/56043-spirit-god-3.html

Yeahh, we said the same thing.

Said Saul of Tarsus, when he supported the stoning of Stephen . . .

Oh Irony. So did nephi say, the lord delivered laban into his hands. Some bad bad fruits their! *sarcasm*

What do you mean by "awful", specifically, aside from "dared to question postulates I never questioned" and "reached different conclusions than I did"?

You got a brain you read it.

[Dravin]

You got a brain you read it.

AKA, "No, I won't explain myself."

Edited November 11, 2013 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

EoG, you must be praying--hard--that people won't look to the context of your quotes.

Your prayers aren't being answered.

Defended? Oh man. I said NOTHING of the sort!Twisting twisting twisting.

I think it's telling how when you cite a six-month old quote of yours, you add an emphasis to parts of the quote that were never emphasized in the original. The context is that your buddy Snuffer was quoting from Musser and Woolley, I warned you what he was doing, and your direct response was "I actually find there are some truths openly taught in the break off branches of the LDS church that are not public in our church since the early days." Anyone who read that thread knew what you were getting at, in spite of your later attempts to rehabilitate your statement.

"Just because something is sustained and voted in as Do[c]trine (common consent) does not make it truth or doctrine. It may be binding because we accept something, but it does not make it binding to God."

Actually YOU said that too. . .

Yeahh, we said the same thing.

I didn't disagree with the principle; I simply pointed out the way you used it to try to undermine President Woodruff.

Oh Irony. So did nephi say, the lord delivered laban into his hands. Some bad bad fruits their! *sarcasm*

Uh . . . I didn't bring the by-their-fruits-ye-shall-know-them analogy into this discussion. That was you. If you don't like that principle anymore, I suggest you take it up with its Author.

[ElectofGod]

AKA, "No, I won't explain myself."

AKA I am not going to give him another reason to twist my words, find fault with me, and do anything he can to find something negative in what I am saying. He faults me for saying I am not understanding the TRUE meanings. And he is totally missing the point of mine.

Its a waste of time, not uplifting, lack of spirit, unedifying, not to mention POINTLESS discussion.

JUST_AGUY,

And you did bring FRUITS into this discussion. Back about "I will compare him to DS! He doesn't think he is evil like I do so he must be evil, logical explanation. These are the bad fruits...and you listed some ..."

Not to mention you slandered an ENITRE testimony of an individual, daniel rodgers, because he interpreted ONE verse differently than you? Seriously? Who does that? That gold digger joseph you know? I am going to read this tesitmony, find ONE thing wrong with it and say "I don't discount his testimony" BUT,

Let me requote you,

I have no business saying what he has or hasn't seen. But I can point out the misdirections he deploys. For example, he writes "Even followers of true prophets find themselves in the telestial kingdom (see D&C 76:98-101)."

Its apparent you do not know the difference between FOLLOW and RECEIVE.

"D&C 76:101 But received not"

Daniel "Even followers of true prophets"

Its becoming apparent what you are trying to do. But I will say you probably did it out of ignorance.. I hope so. Discredit someone else, one whom the Lord himself accepted I don't care. Not to say I know he had these experiences but I do believe he did.

I am out. Off to spiritually uplifting discussion. I hope someone just locks this thread. Remove the temptation for both of us.

Edited November 11, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Dravin]

Its a waste of time, not uplifting, lack of spirit, unedifying, not to mention POINTLESS discussion.

Then why respond?