Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7,249 Excellent


About rockpond

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,088 profile views
  1. I agree with this. I'm making the point here about how this latest incident proves the Woodruff statement to be false (at least in any general applicability) because I'm tired of being told that the prophet can't lead us astray. Clearly the prophet can. And has. And just did once again without any expression of remorse or acknowledgement of error.
  2. Yes, you are correct. And I'm comfortable getting my own. I knew the Nov 2015 policy was not the revealed will of God. And, apparently, I knew it before our prophet realized it whilst he was leading the church astray.
  3. Not going to happen. I already know the answer. If you don't wish to weigh in here - I respect that.
  4. Dangerous waves and tides. Obviously. But if our 15 prophets, seers, and apostles can't decipher between true and false revelation, they don't seem particularly useful in helping to navigate us through the storms.
  5. If that's the case, there was a lot of collateral damage in teaching that point. Seems like there could have been a better way. And the Lord allowing a prophet to lead us astray to teach us prophetic fallibility goes against what Pres. Woodruff taught about it not being part of the plan for the Lord to let the prophet lead us astray.
  6. I followed that thread and don't recall anything that countered the point that one of the two contradicting "revelations" has/had to be leading us astray. The two policies are in opposition and are both claimed to be the revealed will of the Lord.
  7. It does matter because they are still claiming that two contradicting policies both came to them through revelation as the will of the Lord. Why should I place any trust in their revelations if they can't seem to decipher between true and false revelations?
  8. Nothing wrong with prophets making mistakes. The question is: Which of the two revelations was in error? 2015 or 2019?
  9. So we now have a "revelation" that was published in November of 2015. And a "revelation" that was announced in April of 2019 that reversed the 2015 "revelation". Did the first "revelation" lead us astray and the second was God correcting it?
  10. I got to teach the Easter devotional to a Christian group of elderly folks at an assisted living center near my home. It was a wonderful opportunity and the resurrection takes on special significance when you are with a group of people who are finishing up their mortal years here on earth.
  11. Yes, if we are going to make the claim, we ought to be able to explain what it means. Doesn’t really feel like we can do that right now.
  12. Excellent point. Let’s bring back the campaign! Get the ads running again. Billboards, subway signage, Times Square... let’s cover them with I’m a Mormon again!
  13. The analogy wasn't about the trust between my wife and I. It was making the point that my wife telling YOU that we follow our budgets doesn't actually tell you anything about how we spend our money. Likewise, when the audit report tells members that the Church is following its own budgets -- it doesn't actually convey any information on how the Church is spending sacred funds. As a tithe-paying member, I place a great deal of trust in our church leadership. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree the decision that was made some 60 years ago and the pattern that it established of not sharing church financial reports with members. Over those decades, the audit report seems to give an illusion of disclosure while not actually communicating any real information on how sacred funds are being used to build the kingdom.
  14. From the Wikipedia page on Church finances: “During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the church greatly increased spending on buildings under the leadership of Henry Moyle. Moyle's reasoning was that by building larger meetinghouses the church would attract more converts. The accelerated building program led to a $32 million deficit in 1962. It was Moyle who convinced David O. McKay to discontinue publishing an annual financial statement in order to hide the extent of the spending.[15]Eventually, McKay relieved Moyle from his administrative responsibilities and spending was reined in.[16]” I haven’t read Quinn’s article (reference 15) so I can’t speak to how accurately that Wikipedia statement is. But I think the evidence points to disclosure of finances becoming unfavorable, so the practice stopped. Many members defend that ongoing decision.
  15. Yes. I've acknowledged my error in looking at the digital conference report rather than the digital version of the May Ensign. Since I always read GC from that conference report, I haven't given much thought to the May edition of the Ensign. And I believe that I thanked whomever it was that pointed out my error to me (I believe it was @bluebell but I could be mistaken. I wouldn't expect it to be artificially nestled among the Saturday conference talks. That would be odd.
  • Create New...