Notatbm

So the statement you provide is actually heresay. Kimball had all the pulpit time in front of the entire world anyone could ever want yet he still didn’t say it.

I have, I just don’t talk about it…. Too sacred

Not if they are a leader in an organization that has a truth problem. I was taught not to trust people in business or whatever who are not honest. Mormons have lots of teachings about honesty out there so you would figure it would be important to have integrity. Why should that change for a religious leader who supports an organization with known and provable problems with honesty and may have issues with it himself?

It would at least make them speak directly to it in terms of stating it frankly. Right now all we have are statements that just sound like they may have but they don’t just say it. Im not aware that there is any prohibition from them just saying so except maybe they don’t want to lie.

Of all these guys you listed only Joseph f smith claimed to have seen Jesus.. many times. He also lied under testimony at the reed smoot hearings. cfr for statements these other guys have personally seen Jesus. All I could find was the same old feelings stories. Or “I know….” Without saying how they know like for example…. He appeared to me or something like that. Js wasn’t afraid to say it.

So none of them actually state they have seen Jesus in person? Why does that convince you they all have? Why do they not just say they have instead of using evasive language.? . it like yes we can’t talk about it or say we have, but we will lead you to believe we actually have seen Jesus. Seems like they are constructively disobeying whoever is telling them not to talk about it because it is “too spiritual “ or whatever.

I think the last guy to publicly say he has seen Jesus was Lorenzo snow. he is a documented liar under oath in the Temple Lot case. so in his case I wouldn’t believe he saw Jesus in person. the better question to ask is since Lorenzo snows time, how come none (as far as I know) of the Mormon prophets have proclaimed to have seen Jesus in person. They word smith statements to make it seem like they have but fall short of actually saying so. Jeff holland and Gordon Hinkley both lied in live interviews with reporters about easily provable information. I wouldn’t believe them if the saw Jesus. im confident none of them have actually seen Jesus.

They don’t say it because they have not seen him. There are many things church leaders have lied about in the past, but I believe they at least have enough integrity to not go down that road. Many like to say it’s too sacred to talk about if they had, but that didn’t stop Joseph smith from saying so about allegedly the most arguably sacred “appearance “ of Jesus to anyone in recorded history. … or was it Heavenly Father himself??? Or both of them? I dont recall and neither did Joseph smith apparently.

Can you show me where in Mormon doctrine , lesson manuals or whatever where the height of steeples on temples is important is taught? I’m willing to change my opinion but I was married in mesa temple and it doesn’t even have a steeples the idea it is neccessary and needs to be tall is total bs and a completely made up argument by the church.

They (the area authorities) thought it out enough to publish letters to all the stakes in their area of responsibility and sending it to all members with instructions on what to say. since two plus maybe more area authorities were involved, those letters were sent out likely at the direction of the 1st presidency they lied about the importance of the giant steeple they wanted.

Not a transcript but two separate letters that went out from the church area authorities (so basically the 1st presidency since they put it on church letterhead and sent to multiple areas) to encourage members to send in letters to the fairview city council as a show of support for the temple. One of the items they asked to be included in correspondence was the importance of the steeple to worship in the mormon temple. As if that is even a thing.

Ok/yea that is the discussion. in your entire life in the church have you ever been taught anything about the importance of having a steeple on a temple much less anything about the height of it or whether there is even a steeple at all? Answer is definitely no. This guy is selling it to the city council as it being important thus necessary for Mormons free practice of religion. We all know that’s not true therefore it is a lie. He is a lawyer representing the church therefore he is lying to the city council on behalf of the prophet.

He was arguing it for this temple. That was what about 98% of this fiasco was about. The church took the position the steeple had to be the height they are demanding be accepted. It was pitched as a religious belief which it isn’t for Mormons… so he is lying

That’s the point. Church steeple height is important. Is what he argues. Nowhere in our doctrine does it say that. He is lying. one min mark

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/rpsnipVagc sorry but it’s a video. It’s only two ish minutes. I know ur not gonna watch it, but it is of the lds lawyer testimony to city council

I take it you didn’t follow the Fairview steeple fiasco. The church lawyers argued steeples were neccessary. Also local area authorities sent out correspondence to the temple district encouraging members write in and mention steeple heights important to worship. listen to the city council arguments by church lawyers. also- if you have the time

I guess steeples weren’t necessary after all. Why does the church lie? temple on left is a rendering of Austria temple. No steeple.

I don’t have a bunch of time right now but read this for additional perspective. The good news is a righteous Mormon can not only go the the celestial kingdom, he can become a God. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

You are correct. The only Church Christ recognizes is the Mormon church… according to Mormons. Everyone who seeks exaltation will have to join, be baptized and confirmed a member of the Mormon church. Then if they are married will need to get sealed in the temple to their spouse and whatever family members accept Mormonism. Even those who have already died will have to accept the gospel according to Mormons. If they do, the proxy ordinance which was possibly already done for them will count as the ordinances performed. If they have not been done yet, they have to wait till they are. The proxy ordinances are mostly what goes on in Mormon temples. The rest is ordinances for members their first time through, sealings (marriages) and “second anointing” for a very select few. Read up on the second anointing, that one is pretty wild. All I can and will say here is having parents who climbed the Mormon ladder a bit and were connected to brass in salt lake, dementia sure brought out some interesting stuff that a lucid person would not let see the light of day. the Mormon church’s position is there are no valid ordinances on earth unless performed with the authority of Mormon priesthood keys (authority). Basically a baptism in the Catholic church, Baptist church, etc is not valid nor is anything else any other church does. Thats where Brad Wilcox comment about playing church comes in. I’m not sure what your last paragraph is saying so I won’t comment on it.

Nope- I am aware of what holy week is. I even mentioned earlier both Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday were a part of that, but the churches website says we do not observe holy week. If they were aware Easter and Palm Sunday were a part of holy week....they are aware... they wouldn't have coupled it with Holy week since Mormons conveniently disregard all the rest of it in terms of formal recognition, observance or celebration. Holy week in its entirety is a non-Mormon. Celebrating Easter is a Mormon tradition so why not just call it easter Sunday and move on? As one of my previous references showed the term "Holy Week" was mentioned in general conference for the very first time in 2023.... no matter how much you want it to be, it is not a Mormon thing. It may end up being that way though, I mean the restored church keeps changing what it believes so anything is possible.

I acknowledged and corrected it. Am I supposed to make some kind of formal apology to everyone for potentially inadvertently deceiving a person as to the actual title of Brad Wilcox? Look- once that tape went public do you think for even one minute he didnt have a sit down with either the first presidency or at least a couple apostles where damage control was discussed? He is (was) a General Officer of the Church and in such capacity he represented the church in his statements at that fireside and apparently in many others as he had the talk memorized. If the church does not like what he said, they make him do an apology and they get final say in what that apology consists of before he gets online with his wife and repents or whatever for his racist comments. That is how the church distanced itself from those statements. While he did apologize for the race thing, he did not apologize for the playing church commentary which was disgusting. Now that the church got their mitts on him and corrected what they thought was in error, they left the playing church rant alone so now they own the commentary on it. Now it may as well have been an apostle who said it because they didn't have a problem with it. If you believe for one minute they couldn't shut him down, make him apologize for the whole thing and remove him from his calling you have another thing coming. Since they did not do that, church headquarters (Apostles or General Authorities) now own it. The lack of an apology for those really crappy comments about ALL OTHER RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD are now approved by the Mormon church and in reality it doesn't matter if he was a general officer or general authority.

The LDS church is essentially trying to slow-roll its way into the average every day christian world with re-branding and "lowering" its own standards in order to blend in and not seem so weird. Now deceased apostle Jeffrey Holland essentially said this in a Q&A event and in the middle of it caught himself and changed the topic. There may be exceptions, but I am not aware of any Christian religion who recognizes Mormons as true Christians. This is because they do not believe in the trinity as the Christian world does. That is the primary argument. Anyway- here is a short list of recent changes (within 40 yrs or so) that illustrate the gradual shift. It is such a slow shif in fact that many members will gaslight other members and act as if we have always done things this way: 1-Lowering of dress standards for the youth, allowing the wearing of a crucifix, using worship bands at youth events 2-Changiong the definition of modest dress for women by allowing them to wear tank-top like clothing as opposed to always having their shoulders covered. A woman exposing her shoulders was considered to be presenting themselves a "pornography" to men 3- Changing the Home Teaching program to "Ministering" which is a term pretty much historically not used by Mormons, but regular Christians sure do 4- Up to three years ago, no one was talking about Palm Sunday or the rest of the events on the Liturgical calendar except for Easter. traditions of other churches are not anything Mormons historically do such as celebrate palm Sunday, last supper, ash Wednesday etc. Only thing ever celebrated and talked about has been Easter. Sure the events leading up to the resurrection have been discussed, but they have never been the subject of celebration. 5- Using the term "Restored Church" to refer to mormonism while conversing with members of other faiths is a recent flex where one can talk civilly while at the same time remind the member of the non-mormon religion that Mormons are the only ones with the true restored gospel. Eventually the Mormon church will be indistinguishable from most of the others and members will start to act as if we have always done stuff this way. Is it wrong to change? Certainly not, but when up to this time we openly stated we do not celebrate holy week well they need to just come out and say ok now we do.....but only certain parts. The Church website is in conflict with itself as I initially posted. As for the whore of the world issue- that was taught for a long time and even in the temple there was a script line about Popes being bought up by Satan with gold and silver. That was changed in 1990, but no church leader has come out and stated what was stated in the temple was false doctrine (I wont hold my breath). At least I have never seen evidence of that. The LDS church has a policy of not issuing apologies so don't expect one from the Mormon church to the Pope anytime soon. I don't feel that way about Catholics and never have, but i know what I was taught and it will be at least 50 years until every last Mormon alive who was taught that or heard it in the temple is dead and gone. I do not believe every mormon who was taught that believes it, but it definitely was a thing.

Since I now have your attention are you gonna clear this up? Or continue to let that outright lie just sit here? 1- cfr where I said we don’t celebrate Easter. That is a straight up lie. I never said that

Are you saying that I knew he was a general officer and lied and called him a general authority?

Ok wait a minute… just a few pages back you corrected me and I acknowledged and corrected it…. Right?? Are you as open to correction as you say I should be? Oh my bad… he was a “general officer” in a position of very high influence with the youth… esp juvenile male priesthood holders.”