John Ping Pong Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 People who either do not understand the mission of the Church or do not want the Church to focus on its mission do not understand the Priesthood Manuals. Its like the people who shake their fist and curse God. They don't understand Him.Here you have once again given us a classic example of conformity equaling virtue and true knowledge.
CASteinman Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) However, JFS, and the Church following in his footsteps, taught (and still does in old-but-still-being-used manuals) that there was No Blood Before The Fall (here's the problematic history of that idea), something still taught in institute manuals (although it remains to see whether that will be retained). It's not just a quaint theory - it's a concept that has been highly entrenched in 20th Century Mormon thought, thanks to JFS and BRM. It's viewed as a major trump card for the 'Evolution is an Evil Lie' crowd. a brand new, 2013 manual reinforcing that idea would be... lets just say, a big deal.Big deal to whom? In 35 years of membership living in over 14 wards and branches, I have never heard this mentioned even once by a faithful member as any sort of deal at all.This is silly to call it a big deal -- unless you mean "To me its a big deal". But of course to critics of the Church gnats are big deals -- while camels go unnoticed. Edited July 4, 2012 by CASteinman
CASteinman Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Here you have once again given us a classic example of conformity equaling virtue and true knowledge.Here you have, once again, someone speaking out of their hat and not understanding what they are replying to. If you do not know what I am talking about, how about asking instead of assuming.
CASteinman Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Strangely I have no trouble believing that unpublished story.I would not either. He seems to be like that. But I think I recall an instance of failure -- thus it would not be perfect.Would you care to engage instead of merely declaiming?I have already explained it. You have ignored that. What then is the point?
John Ping Pong Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 If you do not know what I am talking about, how about asking instead of assuming.I am not the one who doesn't know what you are talking about.
CASteinman Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 I am not the one who doesn't know what you are talking about.Well then you are doing a perfect imitation. For example, it has NOTHING to do with conformity in opposition to virtue and knowledge. Yet you think so. Which shows that you either do not understand or you are pretending not to understand. I preferred to think better of you than to suppose you are being intentionally dishonest.
ERayR Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 In the rush to condemn and marginalize Elder Bruce R. McConkie it would be well to again take note of who the man really was. 2
Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Would you care to engage instead of merely declaiming?Rather ironic, this...... 2
ERayR Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Rather ironic, this......He is a bit slippery isn't he?
wenglund Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 In the case of Brother McConkie, his dying testimony given at General Conference obviates any "mistakes" he may have made. It was the testimony of a man who KNEW. In case you have forgotten, Mr. Paxton:In other words, in terms of things that really matter, and in regards to what their respective roles were in relation to the gospel and the mission thereof, time has been and will continue to be generous to these two ardent servants of God in question, and rightly so.Whereas, I dare say the opposite is likely for the Craig Paxton's of the world and other would-be judges of the Church and its leaders--assuming time will remember them much, if at all.Thanks, -Wade Englund- 2
wenglund Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Here you have once again given us a classic example of conformity equaling virtue and true knowledge.Would you care to engage instead of merely declaiming?Thanks, -Wade Englund-
wenglund Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 The only standard he gave for others that Elder McConkie held to himself is that one must believe whatever Elder McConkie says or risk damnation.Would you care to engage instead of merely declaiming?Thanks, -Wade Englund-
wenglund Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 I am not the one who doesn't know what you are talking about.Would you care to engage instead of merely declaiming?Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Would you care to engage instead of merely declaiming?Thanks, -Wade Englund-The curtain has fallen on his limited engagement here. Perhaps he has already found another stage on which to declaim. 2
theplains Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 We AREN'T supposed to just accept what great men, including prophets and apostles, and all church leaders and institute/seminary teachers say. We are supposed to seek and obtain our own inspiration that confirms what they teach as true, and how it applies to us.Has your 'inspiration' ever lead you to believe that some things taught in the seminary manuals are actually false teachings? Ifyes, would you provide some key examples?Because if some are not true, they can lead those people astray who believe them and act on their belief.Thanks,Jim
ERayR Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Has your 'inspiration' ever lead you to believe that some things taught in the seminary manuals are actually false teachings? Ifyes, would you provide some key examples?Because if some are not true, they can lead those people astray who believe them and act on their belief.Thanks,JimTo declare something a false teaching is a pretty lofty judgement. Can you give some examples? Instead of constantly looking for reasons to reject what is taught it would serve you better to see what good you can take from their words. 1
theplains Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 To declare something a false teaching is a pretty lofty judgement. Can you give some examples? Instead of constantly looking for reasons to reject what is taught it would serve you better to see what good you can take from their words.I used the word "if" in my post.Regards,Jim
ERayR Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 I used the word "if" in my post.Regards,JimGive me some examples of what your "if" would look like.
theplains Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Give me some examples of what your "if" would look like.I will ... as soon as that person can tell me what his inspiration has told him. Personally, I am not LDS.Regards,Jim
Bikeemikey Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 In other words, in terms of things that really matter, and in regards to what their respective roles were in relation to the gospel and the mission thereof, time has been and will continue to be generous to these two ardent servants of God in question, and rightly so.Whereas, I dare say the opposite is likely for the Craig Paxton's of the world and other would-be judges of the Church and its leaders--assuming time will remember them much, if at all.Thanks, -Wade Englund-If someone "knew" the savior, as faithful LDS assume Bruce R and other apostles of the LDS church do, what does this have to do with claims they make about other Gospel related topics that turn out to not be fully accurate based on present day church position or current research. Or are you claiming that such "knowledge" means that they will not ever speak inaccurately?
why me Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) Has your 'inspiration' ever lead you to believe that some things taught in the seminary manuals are actually false teachings? Ifyes, would you provide some key examples?Because if some are not true, they can lead those people astray who believe them and act on their belief.Thanks,JimI haven't seen any false teachings. In fact just the opposite. If a youth goes to seminary, he or she will learn how to live a good life and be a person with love in their hearts. And they will learn to treat their bodies like a temple of god. Not bad, really. Edited July 4, 2012 by why me 1
ERayR Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 I will ... as soon as that person can tell me what his inspiration has told him. Personally, I am not LDS.Regards,JimThe whole exercise of finding errors that prophets and apostles make or are perceived to have made is designed to marginalize their testimonies. 2
why me Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 I will ... as soon as that person can tell me what his inspiration has told him. Personally, I am not LDS.Regards,JimWell, lets see...I received inspiration to live the word of wisdom. I haven't done drugs, smoked a cigarette, drank alcohol etc. I was also inspired to be a nice person most of the time and to treat others with respect and dignity. I try my best with my inspirations.
why me Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 If someone "knew" the savior, as faithful LDS assume Bruce R and other apostles of the LDS church do, what does this have to do with claims they make about other Gospel related topics that turn out to not be fully accurate based on present day church position or current research.Or are you claiming that such "knowledge" means that they will not ever speak inaccurately?I don't know how much they knew the savior or even know the savior. I know that they know the bible as many lds do. I think that they may know heavenly father better through prayer. I would not want to be a GA because people would believe that every word that may come out of my mouth was from god. It would be as if god's voice speaks through me every minute and every second. No thanks. Too much for me to handle...because I would know that this was not true.
wenglund Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 The curtain has fallen on his limited engagement here. Perhaps he has already found another stage on which to declaim.For such, the whole world is a stage. LOLI wish him well.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Recommended Posts