Should The Church Correct Those Who Have An Incorrect Understanding Of Gospel Subjects?

[Aliwe]

There is no established meaning of the word race.

The Nazis insisted there was an "Aryan" race. Nowadays they talk about a "Hispanic" race, it's an actual check block on the census forms. But there's no race, other than the human race maybe. The Bible mentions only peoples and kindreds and tongues.

[SamIam]

…I'd point out that every geology teacher and every biology teacher at BYU teaches evolution. And I'd talk about how our scriptures do not bind us to the Fundamentalst interpretations or agenda. I'd mention that the strongest LDS opinions expressed against the notion of evolution were just that, the opinions of individuals, The social environment in which such ideas were expressed had an impact on the arguments made, simply assuming with Fundamentalists and the Darwinists that there is an irreconcilable conflict, and choosing sides and arguments based on what I see as a false assumption. … The official LDS statements are all open ended. For every LDS GA who opposed any reconcilliation, there are others equally prominent who were comfortable with reconcilliation. All or nothing thinking all too often increases the danger of leaving a student with nothing. .

I've been doing this for years when I teach, or comment during someone else's comments, and in Wards in California, Kansas, and Pennsylvania have had no trouble getting along.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I don't have any problem with God using Evolution in the Creation of everything.

When we consider matters of this type I have difficulty with members who have the duplicitous capacity to deny all the while claiming they sustain the general authorities of the church. I don't understand how someone can somehow place the teachers at BYU on superior footing and as purveyors of truth over and above those General Authorities that have had the courage to speak against what has become the single greatest theory in the destruction of a belief in God and his son Jesus Christ of all time. If you read between the lines it is upon this principal that that Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith and others have taken so strong an opposition to the THEORY of evolution. It is upon this principle that I take a very strong opposition to the theory and to individuals who might think they have some place to equivocate in a Sunday school class or elsewhere in church interactions in defense of the theory of evolution.

When I have encountered these misguided ones it is actually a simple thing to close the discussion upon a couple of principles. First off it is inappropriate to even attempt to square off on these theoretical perspectives in a Sunday school or similarly conducted LDS meeting where the objective is a foundation of testimony concerning truth. There are no testimonies of evolution to be shared. I will explain in a moment. Nonetheless it is woefully inappropriate to make these venues a platform for personal delusions.

I have two approaches. One or both can be used and either is appropriate. The second tends to be the swiftest and leaves that uncomfortable silence as the detractors want to continue their defense in light of a superior truth that requires their silence.

The first is simple enough. To date I have not found a clearer more succinct statement concerning expectations of the ultimate condemnation of Evolution than this one:

Of this much we are quite certain: When, during the Millennium, the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is translated, it will give an account of life in the premortal existence; of the creation of all things; of the Fall and the Atonement and the Second Coming; of temple ordinances, in their fullness; of the ministry and mission of translated beings; of life in the spirit world, in both paradise and hell; of the kingdoms of glory to be inhabited by resurrected beings; and many such like things. As of now, the world is not ready to receive these truths. For one thing, these added doctrines will completely destroy the whole theory of organic evolution as it is now almost universally taught in the halls of academia. For another, they will set forth an entirely different concept and time frame of the creation, both of this earth and all forms of life and of the sidereal heavens themselves, than is postulated in all the theories of men. And sadly, there are those who, if forced to make a choice at this time, would select Darwin over Deity. (The Bible, a Sealed Book, Bruce R. McConkie, BYU, 1984.)

Now as a statement it is wonderfully precise. Also, on the principle that some use to validate its worth, you will note that it was taught at BYU- therefore it must be true. I do not however use its direct challenge to evolutionary tales for the strength of my point. The point is this I have never raised my hand to the square to sustain a BYU professor. I have never committed, nor agreed to represent the doctrines of BYU or any other of the more misguided institutions of men. The discussion changes from the right or the wrong of evolution, and becomes a discussion of the integrity of the individuals in the room. Did you mean it when you raised your hand or did you not? I have stated that whether or not one perspective is true or not I become a liar on an entirely different principle. In the Lord’s venue, at the very least, I support and sustain the Lords servants and their observations over any BYU professor. I also place significance on the position of the speaker on the same principle that I am placing on the members, since it is the responsibility of the members to sustain the prophet and the apostles, it is even more important that the other GA’s sustain them as well ahead of BYU professors. It comes down to a render unto Caesar what is his and a render unto God what is his termination of the discussion. I am perfectly content with BYU teaching the material. It is appropriate for their venue. It is Caesars venue and BYU would be remiss to fail to prepare it’s student for Caesars requirements. However, in the Lords venue we should, if we have even the least degree of integrity, sustain the Lord and who he has called.

Only once has this not ended the conversation. In that instance, a light opened in my mind and I found the greatest truth of all that is correct beyond any theories potential.

Now, I realize that the moment it looks like I am going to use scripture some reading this post may go no further but if you bear with the process it is a correct principle of perfect truth. Some wish to equivocate on what the scriptures bind us to and what they do not. I think we should recognize we are bound to the scriptures at an entirely different level of character than debating techniques. I went to Moroni 7 and quickly summarized that this is a message of warning being given to members of the church at the time by Mormon who identifies them as saints by their “peaceable walk.”

A little further in though Mormon is going to give them a profound tool and if you are a sincere believer in Christ it is undeniable.

I emphasized the following underlined points:

(Moroni 7:14 -18)

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

I pointed out that this warning was not about the evil of murderers, thieves and rapists. Those types of evil stand out too starkly for anyone to deny their obvious wicked intent. This warning was about thoughts and ideas and information - things that would sound very reasonable and appealing. Mormon was trying to show them how to discern between things that would be used to persuade them to believe in one thing or another – the most insidious forms of evil the sophistry of words. At this point I made this observation, that the theory of evolution is comprised of bits and pieces of truth. To any honest person it has some compelling holes as well. However, us nice LDS don’t want to look too confrontational so we try to be agreeable on the points that we can and then tip-toe around any conflicts. However, 9 times out of ten, the person talking to you is engaging in their defense of evolution from the unspoken vantage point of “the language of the scriptures is inferior to the knowledge of men”.

I then pointed out, that it mattered not what bits and pieces of truth could be found in the theory but that overall there has been no greater concept taught to the children of men that has been used to weaken faith, deny Christ, make a mockery of God and those who would believe in him than the theory of evolution. Millions upon millions of God’s children have ceased to believe in him because of this other explanation of how things came to be. For LDS to raise the banner of evolution, without recognizing what its purpose is and what the being who inspired its inception was hoping to accomplish, is to sustain its influence in destroying the potential testimonies of Jesus Christ and upon that principle, not the sophistic points of truth that reel people in, but upon the principle of its destruction of the testimony of Jesus Christ according to Moroni 7 it was the grandest evil foisted upon the children of men. – And that I know with every fiber of my being.

J. Brock Lenox

P.S. This post is in memory of LOG, of blessed memory, who followed in the path of Teancum and in a fit of anger sacrificed himself to the cause of defense of the principles he held dear.

Edited June 22, 2012 by SamIam

[cwald]

Sam, do you think the majority of active LDS share your sentiment?

Is this really what the majority if church members believe and see as being faithful, and sustaining the prophets?

[Calm]

When we consider matters of this type I have difficulty with members who have the duplicitous capacity to deny all the while claiming they sustain the general authorities of the church. I don't understand how someone can somehow place the teachers at BYU on superior footing and as purveyors of truth over and above those General Authorities that have had the courage to speak against what has become the single greatest theory in the destruction of a belief in God and his son Jesus Christ of all time

I think you missed his point. The regents of BYU are the general authorities of the Church, they are the ones that determine what is and isn't proper curriculum for the students. Unless you think the GAs, specifically the First Presidency and the Twelve, are willing to put in jeopardy the eternal welfare of those youth under their guidance by allowing false doctrine to be taught simply so BYU can get accredited by secular authorities, you need to figure out why such things are allowed to be taught with the full knowledge of the brethren.

[ERayR]

I think you missed his point. The regents of BYU are the general authorities of the Church, they are the ones that determine what is and isn't proper curriculum for the students. Unless you think the GAs, specifically the First Presidency and the Twelve, are willing to put in jeopardy the eternal welfare of those youth under their guidance by allowing false doctrine to be taught simply so BYU can get accredited by secular authorities, you need to figure out why such things are allowed to be taught with the full knowledge of the brethren.

Yet in the name of academic freedom they allow a lot of leeway. BYU is an educational institution and not a theological defense organization. The regents of BYU see to it that the students have religion courses and do not trample on on agency.

Edited June 22, 2012 by ERayR

[SamIam]

I think you missed his point. The regents of BYU are the general authorities of the Church, they are the ones that determine what is and isn't proper curriculum for the students. Unless you think the GAs, specifically the First Presidency and the Twelve, are willing to put in jeopardy the eternal welfare of those youth under their guidance by allowing false doctrine to be taught simply so BYU can get accredited by secular authorities, you need to figure out why such things are allowed to be taught with the full knowledge of the brethren.

That we might be clear upon what point I found disagreeable let me clarify so that perhaps we might be in agreement on the simple perspective of further understanding. I am an optimistic person by habit. What I gleaned from the portion that I copied into my post was that Kevin Christensen was responding to post # 120 by DBMormon who was responding to a post #114 by thesometimesaint. Mr STS felt to teach his Sunday school class upon certain criteria. Mr. DBM inquired:

What would you do if someone in your class insisted in discussion that evolution is false?

So the purview for my response is based on the fact 1.) That I, as a several time teacher of Gospel Doctrine (also my current calling now) have a very good perception of the lesson material for many years. To my best recollection evolution has never been a point of any gospel lesson - a position sustained by the same regents of BYU. 2.) DBM’s question was concerning a Sunday School venue. 3.) Kevin Christensen felt perfectly at ease introducing points of no relevance to any lesson material that I am aware of in an LDS Sunday School class. Any who have taught the adult classes are very familiar with those whose priority is not to seek to be taught the truthful principles of the Gospel but is instead to derail and deflect the spirit from the venue by distracting the class from the process of spiritual edification. Not a single point he made can come in that setting as a spiritual testimony and the chances are exceptionally slim that the spirit will ever confirm any of his statements to any member of a Sunday School class. The points are not appropriate for that venue. Some teachers do not always know upon what principles one should combat an effort to destroy the spirit in this type of sophistic response.

I have had some success at realizing that when I detect that the spirit has left the venue it is my job as the instructor and on one occasion as a participant in the class to invite the spirit back. No method is more successful and corrects mistaken priorities better than to invite the spirit to return by sharing the appropriate scriptural or otherwise material and then bearing testimony of the nature that the spirit can sweep back through and actually bear witness to those who hear of truth. I have watched people’s hearts change and the theories of men relegated to their proper place as proper considerations for a different time and place but not in a Sunday School class. I have also noted that this one principle, as I outlined it in my post of Moroni 7 gives such a powerful foundation that in the future conversations that some have, they have stated they knew what they were dealing with and were able to address it appropriately and with power.

So that is the perspective of my answer. Now to give answer to your question which is not really germane to my point but as it could perhaps have an unintended effect of causing others to censure the validity of my point I will address it as if it were related to my perspective.

Calmoriah, while I have always appreciated your reasoned and thoughtful posts, I have noted that you can just as easy take one side of a point or the other depending on your approval of the posters presentation. I have felt that I am too bold for your preferences, but I am sure that had you decided to reflect in a supportive fashion you would have crafted a response illustrating the obvious extension of my point into other venues where the church has acted in exactly the same fashion under similar circumstances of purview. The clearest is same gender unions (SGU). The Church, embracing the same body of regents that work in the BYU venue, has granted unto Caesar what is Caesars in declaring that officially they have no problem with legal definitions that provide rights and privileges to partners of SGS’s that are equal to a man and a women in marriage. In other words make them equal in all manners according to the laws of the land. However, the origins of the definition of marriage are and always have been the preview of the religious perspective.

Changing the definition should be a moot point if all that is wanted is the same rights and privileges. However, for some reason it is all but moot and has been hailed an egregious affront but for a few words in a law book that will provide no more than Caesar can ever provide to a union for those who achieve the definition change. However, to the religious institutions that teach that principle of marriage as a union between a man and a women as a holy principle of God it would have dramatic and potentially crippling impact in terms of charitable donations and their use, further moral decline amongst our youth and government involvement in the acceptable doctrines that can be taught without encouraging interference from a governmental perspective. This is the venue of God and the church is absolutely right to protect that venue as representatives that sustain God’s law.

So to bring this back, BYU as an accredited teaching institution at the level it operates it provides a well balanced opportunity for all of its students. They can be instructed in the philosophies of men according to Caesars wishes and that is appropriate for the venue it prepares these young people to operate in. They have equal opportunity to participate in religious education that should provide the alternative role of strengthening their spiritual well being so they can operate in the venue of what is Gods. Frankly, was it not for the fact that I am completely versed in all aspects of evolutionary theory and its weaknesses and presumed strengths I could might never bear the testimony I have concerning its true role and purpose. Sometimes the saints have learned over the years to be agreeable and make some sort of peace with the conflict, each generation more diluted than the previous. I think some are fearful of standing in resolute defense of what is God’s, opting instead for an unholy marriage with Caesar’s theories that they mistakenly feel should be redefined as suitable philosophies to feed the saints in a Sunday school class.

Now my question of you, did you miss the point of why evolution should be considered the evil that many call good?

[John Ping Pong]

Should the church correct those who have an incorrect understanding?

I think that would first require someone with a correct understanding.

[SamIam]

Sam, do you think the majority of active LDS share your sentiment?

Is this really what the majority if church members believe and see as being faithful, and sustaining the prophets?

Cwald. I have always maintained a perception that each of us must be willing to stand alone for the convictions we bear and that it is not upon principles of agreement with the masses that should define such. I give this answer to indicate that it would not matter what the majority of the Church believed if it was in opposition to the spirit of testimony that I have in my heart.

Nonetheless, I will say that I also surround myself with people of testimony whose opinions and spiritual understandings I respect. If I took a stance that any one of them deemed questionable, I would at least reconsider my perspective and evaluate it again against the spirit of truth to make sure I was not running headlong into destruction by my own folly.

The other portion of my answer, I will refrain from at this point as I am not sure what you mean by the last half of this sentence:

“Is this really what the majority if church members believe and see as being faithful, and sustaining the prophets?”

I would like to understand more clearly what your perspective is or what you heard in your mind when you were reading my post that caused you to ask this question. I need to know what "this" as used above means to you. Then I can consider a more reasoned response that address your perspective more clearly.

[cwald]

I guess I was asking if the lds consider the science of evolution to be "evil"...and if that is what they believe the prophets to believe...and if I raise my arm to the square to support and sustain them that I should accept that belief also.

[SamIam]

I guess I was asking if the lds consider the science of evolution to be "evil"...and if that is what they believe the prophets to believe...and if I raise my arm to the square to support and sustain them that I should accept that belief also.

I am glad I asked as I would totally have missed the mark. Keep in mind that my entire response earlier was predicated upon a specific situation of a Sunday school derailment by someone who wishes to share an unenlightened perspective on the philosophies of men. Based on my previous history with the subject of evolution in church I would not even teach what I shared here, except in the situation described where testimony is required to invite the spirit back in to a situation. That is my duty and calling and I feel is such for all of us in the religious endeavors of our life.

Sustaining the brethren is a bit more complex. The story is told of Brigham Young and that at one time he made what he considered a valid and legitimate observation about Joseph Smith. Brigham thought Joseph was a bit irresponsible with money and couldn't hold on to a dollar to save his life. Brigham thought his viewpoint was accurate and correct from his observations of Joseph Smith, but he recognized that there was great risk in voicing that opinion and he vowed to himself to never to think upon such thoughts again as he saw them as the seeds of inappropriate criticism and judgment and as seeds they would grow in him until he would be the apostate that everyone else became who was not so wise as Brigham was. Only he and Heber C. Kimball survived of the original 12 and did not turn against Joseph Smith. I have watched several leave the church over the years and to a fault part of the process involved speaking ill of the brethren and letting that seed canker the soul.

So the question is never to me do I agree with the brethren, though that is how it is often phrased. What I hear is do you sustain the brethren and unequivocally and resoundingly I must shout YES I do. I like Brigham realize there is wisdom in acknowledging that in a telestial world you have things run according to telestial laws. However I have to work very hard to not magnify my own telestial state by playing the critic, or childish judge of things I do not know about the motivations of others. I must be as forgiving and non judgmental as I hope Christ will be of me.

As to the degree of does my perspective concerning Moroni 7 fit LDS doctrine on evolution, again that is subject to your spiritual insight and relationship with the Holy Ghost. It is my testimony but you should not take my word on it. Search it out for yourself and then it will become yours not something borrowed from another. The brethren encourage you to find answers to these questions according to the order of heaven. As you grow, you will sustain them more and more steadily for you will begin to think like Brigham did with Joseph. There may be some points to critique them on but you will never see them as worth your soul to highlight.

I am confident that if you examine the development of my point and how I apply Moroni 7 to the theory of Evolution and if you recognize the nature of my statement of how destructive that one theory has been to even the reality of Christ and the creation you might draw sufficient faith to accept just the logistics of my observation. If you need more evidence then I would, recommend you go to You Tube and look up any number of videos by Richard Dawkins on Mormons or on Christianity in general. He is one of the most respected and revered ethologist, evolutionary biologist and agnostics in the world and no right thinking LDS in my mind would ever want to be on the same team as this man. Yet by association many so choose.

There are dozens of videos… I must warn you, he is smooth, logical and brilliant in his delivery. Please do not spend too much time listening to such testimony destroying material. His message is precisely the message of Korihor that every man fairs according to his management of the creature. It all almost makes sense. I can tell that you seem to be in a kind of searching mode right now – not sure which was to go or how to regain what is lost. However, if you are one to be motivated by hidden agenda’s of dripping disdain like venom as it is delivered by someone who is so smooth that it will make you shudder then check out one of the world’s most respected evolutionists and see if he makes sense to you. If he does then I will be sorrowful for suggesting you look in on him. I think, I hope that you are of stronger metal and if you sense even the slightest recoil in your spirit then make that the point of renewal and realize that maybe you might want to stand for something more redeeming and uplifting and inspiring than the message of death that he espouses. He does represent the extreme of what vigorous belief in evolution does to someone’s ability to believe in Jesus Christ. In the church it is not near as evident as it just waters down a testimony by degrees so the stark comparison is more realistic for what this concept has done to the world and its relationship to Christ.

Also if you feel inclined search the on the term “the clergy project” an organization that Richard Dawkins started and funds which is unabashed in its declaration of providing a way out for pastors who no longer believe and want out of the burden of teaching of Jesus Christ and other Christian principles. Again, this is just to provide you with a contrasting perspective – one extreme to the next - my testimony against Richard Dawkins sophistry. After you are done with him sincerely pray and ask for insight and then wait on the Lord to find the right time to help your unbelief. It may take hours, days, months, I don’t know but if you are sincere he does answer. See what comes of it but be ready to stand strong thereafter.

To finish, I cannot tell you what it means for you to support the brethren according to the dictates of your own testimony. I can only show you what it means to me and at this time of my life, I am not the least degree hesitant to support them completely in word and deed so that none may doubt my position on the matter.

Edited June 23, 2012 by SamIam

[DBMormon]

So the question is never to me do I agree with the brethren, though that is how it is often phrased. What I hear is do you sustain the brethren and unequivocally and resoundingly I must shout YES I do. I like Brigham realize there is wisdom in acknowledging that in a telestial world you have things run according to telestial laws. However I have to work very hard to not magnify my own telestial state by playing the critic, or childish judge of things I do not know about the motivations of others. I must be as forgiving and non judgmental as I hope Christ will be of me.

we could all learn this better...amen samlam

[cwald]

Thanks for the reply sam.

I'm mostly interested in what the average, typical church member "believes the church believes" and the orthodoxy it expects from its members.

Interested if your opinion represents the church membership.

Edited June 23, 2012 by cwald

[DBMormon]

I'm mostly interested in what the average, typical church member "believes the church believes" and the orthodoxy it expects from its members.

How does what the median mormon believes help or dissuade you from faith?

[cwald]

How does what the median mormon believes help or dissuade you from faith?

I have been told that I would be welcome...and in the next post told I am wolf and should leave the church.

I have been told I can have my own beliefs and faith, and in the next post that I should join the Community of Christ.

I have been told that the church is an inclusive open tent. In the next post that there are six core principles that I need to believe to be Mormon.

At church one leader insists that I serve as EQP. another leader insists that I be released for apostasy.

At church one teacher insists on literal belief of Scripture. Another teacher says it is okay to believe in allegory.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Within Mormonism there is a wide gulf of belief among active members of the church. There are those who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, who take Adam and Eve literally and subscribe to the belief that there was no death before the fall potentially in the same ward or sunday school class are others who hold completely opposite views i.e. billion year old earth, death existed prior to the fall and that Adam and eve are to be taken as a metaphor. Also creation vs evolution

These are just a few examples of competing beliefs within the same classroom,ward, stake, mission and church. I' could also give examples of this wide gulf even among church GA's Other examples would be Book of Mormon geography limit vs hemispheric, heredity of native Americans or even the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

In light of such a wide and often conflicting belief spectrum within Mormonism, does the church owe it to its membership to provide some clarity? Certainly God's church is a house of order and not confusion. Should such diversity of beliefs exit in the church? Should the church correct those who have an incorrect understanding?

How can it correct everyone else's interpretation, when it offers an interpretation? Why is it even desireable that everyone thinks exactly the same thing and all alike? NONE of us would bother attending anything on Sunday if all we did was listen, nod our heads in complete agreeing assent, say a closing prayer, and go home....... there never has been unanimous agreement in the church from its very inception, whether in Joseph's time or Jesus'........ there is simply no way to achieve a uniformity of belief and thought......

[Kerry A. Shirts]

THE main problem in our church is that we are taught what to think and believe. We are not taught HOW to think and believe..........

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I guess I was asking if the lds consider the science of evolution to be "evil"...and if that is what they believe the prophets to believe...and if I raise my arm to the square to support and sustain them that I should accept that belief also.

Sustaining the brethren in no wise means you have to think like them and believe everything good they think is good and everything bad they think is bad.........

[SamIam]

I have been told that I would be welcome...and in the next post told I am wolf and should leave the church.

I have been told I can have my own beliefs and faith, and in the next post that I should join the Community of Christ.

I have been told that the church is an inclusive open tent. In the next post that there are six core principles that I need to believe to be Mormon.

At church one leader insists that I serve as EQP. another leader insists that I be released for apostasy.

At church one teacher insists on literal belief of Scripture. Another teacher says it is okay to believe in allegory.

I detect the confusion, but you are asking us to take a burden from you that is not possible. Each of us must accept that if we rely on others to make our day there are going to be two or three that rain on our parade. It is a fact of life. What they cannot control is our attitude and if we choose to be forgiving and strive to overlook the bad and choose to see the good. Sometimes that is very difficult and I am not minimizing that but you are the one in control of you on principles such as these.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Samlam has a most powerful point...... there will always be conflicting views, interpretations, translations, teachings, hopes, fears, prophecies, etc....... it's not what happens to you that counts, it's how you react.........

[DBMormon]

Kerry A Shirts,

I take it your not the Kerry Shirts who shows up on FAIR

[selek1]

Kerry A Shirts,

I take it your not the Kerry Shirts who shows up on FAIR

I (and others too) are interested in the answer to this question.

Kerry Shirts had previously registered (and posted) here under another screen name (which escapes me at the moment).

So- this is either a new account for an old friend or a usurpation of Shirt's identity.

The clues are contradictory- so I'm interested in the "official" answer.

Edited June 23, 2012 by selek1

[SamIam]

Never Mind....

Edited June 23, 2012 by SamIam

[DBMormon]

I always find silence very telling

[Aliwe]

... there never has been unanimous agreement in the church from its very inception, whether in Joseph's time or Jesus'........ there is simply no way to achieve a uniformity of belief and thought......

This is impossible for men, but not impossible for God.

John 17:20-22 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.

[selek1]

I always find silence very telling

Agreed.