Jump to content

HappyJackWagon

Contributor
  • Content Count

    6,305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,559 Excellent

3 Followers

About HappyJackWagon

  • Rank
    BISHOP Jackwagon

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,353 profile views
  1. HappyJackWagon

    Left Hand

    The beef seems obvious. You quoted him as saying certain things he did not say. You can blame the board feature OR you could edit the post to be more accurate. There is also an edit feature
  2. Yes. AND frankly...prohibiting a young missionary from speaking with family really just isn't reasonable in this day and age of fast, inexpensive communication. I don't expect that every family will communicate with their missionaries every Pday but just having the freedom to do so will help missionaries feel less isolated and connected to those who love them most.
  3. This is great news. Keeping the line of communication between missionaries and their families open will allow for greater support. This is such a simple but meaningful change. Well done, Pres. Nelson!
  4. HappyJackWagon

    Left Hand

    If someone has the context of the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet, there really isn't any distinction between listening to the prophet share his opinion or share God's will. Fundamental 6- The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture. Combine that with Fundamental 14 - The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer. I would agree that Pres. Oaks never said "thus saith the Lord" but it is certainly implied. Unless Pres. Oaks made a disclaimer that what he was sharing was just his opinion and advice, not God's will, then it would be quite reasonable to expect the deacons to believe he was speaking with God's authority.
  5. HappyJackWagon

    Left Hand

    Soooo...not trying to be obstinate but... You really don't have any problem with a prophet, seer and revelator, a member of the First Presidency, teaching something about God that he believes to be true, but isn't? I mean, what good is a prophet, seer, and revelator if they can't even teach truth about God and His will? I know the question sounds snarky, but it's serious. There has to be some level of reliability and credibility, doesn't there? On the other hand, if a prophet, seer and revelator is merely a sage old man and can only be relied upon to point in the general right direction (Christ), maybe we should accept their limitations and not pay so much heed to the specificity of their words.
  6. HappyJackWagon

    Left Hand

    I'll just leave that right there. You're welcome
  7. HappyJackWagon

    Left Hand

    I'm sure the Deacons are all well-versed in their CHI. How dare they not heed it. I think I know what topic Pres. Oaks will address next time I don't know who recorded or released the info either, but Steve-o makes a good point. It very well could have been recorded for positive purposes, shared, with positive purpose and then taken from there by someone else to do the whole "crocodile man" thing (super weird).
  8. HappyJackWagon

    Review of Dehlin's "Truth Claims" Essays

    I'm asking because I don't know: Has anyone done detailed critiques of the Church essays? And if so, did the church bear the burden of correcting the critique. I agree that the critique should be subject to scrutiny. I don't have a problem with that. But I don't know why it should bear any more scrutiny than the church's essays. I don't know who wrote them all specifically, but my understanding is that scholars, academics, historians etc wrote (or at least heavily contributed to the church essays). These are professionals. They get paid, so I would assume the same level of scrutiny would apply. The church obviously has access to far more resources in both monies and material documents. I would expect the church to be held to a higher standard than Dehlin, regardless of his claims. That said, sloppy work doesn't do his case any favors.
  9. HappyJackWagon

    Left Hand

    I'm curious about this. It's true that he was only speaking to a small group but should we expect that teaching to be different to a different group? For example, does the exactness only apply to young men, or priesthood holders, or people living in Chicago? Or are those groups required to live by a different law? I don't understand why his teaching to one group shouldn't be extrapolated to a larger group, or the church as a whole. If it's a true teaching for boys in Chicago, I would expect it to be true for others as well. But it does exist now. I imagine you could find some quotes and teachings of past leaders requiring exactness in partaking the sacrament with the right hand. I definitely remember being told that I should take it with my right hand, but I've never heard a general level leader speak about it, nor have I ever heard anyone suggest that if a person takes the sacrament with the left hand the ordinance is nullified.
  10. HappyJackWagon

    Review of Dehlin's "Truth Claims" Essays

    I find it funny that people are up in arms because Dehlin might be wrong about some things. He's a guy. He makes mistakes. Would anyone expect him to be more perfect than the church has been? It seems like some here hold Dehlin to a higher standard of accuracy than they do the church and the apostles/prophets since the beginning restoration. Aren't these church leaders supposed to be "experts" on some of the issues they've gotten wrong. Newsflash: everyone makes mistakes...even "experts". I have no problem criticizing Dehlin when he's wrong. I'm an equal opportunity criticizer. I'm fair that way I wonder if those criticizing Dehlin's errors would also be willing to criticize the church's errors.
  11. HappyJackWagon

    Left Hand

    I think he's suggesting that because someone recorded Pres. Oaks' words without his permission, then we really shouldn't be able to discuss or criticize what he said. In court, fruit of the poisonous tree would relate to something like an illegal search and seizure and therefore any evidence found from the illegal search would be inadmissible. That's what he's suggesting...I think. IOW- we shouldn't be able to criticize Oaks because we shouldn't even know what he said. Except, we do know what he said, so it seems like a fair discussion to me. This isn't a legal court.
  12. HappyJackWagon

    Left Hand

    It's a legit issue. Just because Bernard claims people are demeaning Pres. Oaks when they are merely disagreeing with him and noting why his words are a problem, doesn't mean it's true. You don't need to apologize for bringing up a valid concern or question.
  13. HappyJackWagon

    Left Hand

    Let's pretend that either a Pres. Nelson or a Pres. Oaks officially codifies right hand usage for the sacrament. Would that really make it a doctrine? I don't think so. It would still be their opinion. Now, if that teaching managed to stick through multiple prophets and apostles over the next hundred years so that there is consistency to the teaching as doctrine, then yeah, it would be a church doctrine. But does that mean it's God's will? Nope. #priesthoodban
  14. HappyJackWagon

    Left Hand

    Exactly right. The problem isn't really about left/right hand. It's really about an apostle, a member of the 1st Presidency, teaching something as doctrine, that isn't. That should be concerning to people IMO because it accomplishes nothing positive but rather erodes trust.
  15. HappyJackWagon

    Left Hand

    No, it wouldn't be better. If I question Oaks' teaching and he sends it to my SP to correct me or teach me, what I then have is the SP's assumptions, bias, and guesswork about what Oaks meant. But it's even worse because the SP's guesswork is supposed to be authoritative. It adds a level of gravitas to the guesswork of a man who really has no more knowledge of Oaks' thought process than we have.
×