2013 Curriculum: Lorenzo Snow (With Link!)

[Dcharle]

Does the Edelman firm identify itself as a "Jewish" PR Company? http://www.edelman.c.../about-edelman/ Nope.

Strike one for playing the "Jew" card.

Do you know that Hinkley selected the firm for their non-Mormon leadership? Could it be that they are the worlds largest PR firm?

Strike two for mind reading the Prophet.

Is it a problem that the Church pays money to make sure its image is positive so we can accomplish our missionary work? Or that someone has connections to get an interview with a national figure?

Strike three for class-envy.

You are already out in tabloid territory but just for fun lets go for #4.

Was it a sure thing that the interview with Larry King and Mike Wallance were going to have a positive outcome for the Church? Absolutely not. President Hinkley was quoted as saying if it didn't turn out well he wouldn't put his foot in that kind of bear trap again.

Strike four for conspiracy theory.

Forget quoting anti-Mormon sites being a problem. How about drink less anti-Mormon kook-aid.

No strikes, just your failure in research:

#1: If you had checked your Jewish baptism for the dead records you would see that Edelman is a Jewish name. The founder and current president (Daniel and Richard Edelman) are Jewish, both King and Wallace have Jewish heritage.

#2: Something that would cost the church this much $, over the span of time it worked with the firm, would not go without HInckley's approval.

#3:The church has it's own PR firm to help do missionary work, it also has a prophet with the "bat phone" directly to deity, their should be no need to ask the Edelman's, God should be able to direct on such matters.

#4: You are correct, the Hinckley interview with Wallace did not go as planned, none-the-less the Edelman firm help land the interviews with Wallace and King for the purpose of mainstreaming. This is not a conspiracy theory, the firm is just well connected, many corporations use them who need help spinning their message.

This right from their web site:

"Edelman Public Affairs helps clients navigate a complex environment where multiple stakeholders are influencing decisions that impact our clients’ abilities to operate and grow. With over 300 professionals throughout our global network, we design programs to address legislative and regulatory matters, position litigation and influence public opinion by engaging key opinion leaders from elite media to civil society to policymakers. Working together, we help clients manage both issues and reputations..."

#5: As we discussed before, you should not be so quick to brand and name call. I would not consider this as anti-Mormon, these are just facts, the church hired a PR firm with a Jewish background to help it accomplish specific goals. You should not be afraid of this, the church had a specific purposes in mind. It's a corporation that needs help in many areas, the Edelman's are a good choice.

I understand how many within Mormonism can suffer from Myopia, caused by years of a steady diet of the church materials. However, I would encourage you to break free of the Mormon Parallax, the kool-aid tastes nice!

You are out of the thread and off the board if you continue with inflammatory speech.

[zerinus]

I'd like to add my observations on the idea that the LDS church is downplaying certain doctrines. I've seen right here on this discussion forum where some LDS members say that the idea that God was once a man is not a doctrine and others say that it is a doctrine....

What you are observing is not a "downplaying," but conflicting answers. It is a case of "the trumpet giving an uncertain sound" (1 Corinthians 14:8 ). I agree that that is not a desirable state of affairs. I am guessing that the real reason behind it is that there are deeper mysteries and doctrines hidden behind it that cannot be revealed at the present time, therefore the Church prefers to leave things as they are for now rather than clarify the issue. I am guessing that Joseph made a mistake to bring the subject up at all; and it was probably not accurately expressed either, assuming that it is true at all. The point to be observed is that whenever the Lord has wanted to reveal a major doctrine to the Church, He has done so through a formal revelation such those canonised in the D&C. It has never been done through a charismatic sermon preached by Joseph Smith. For these reasons I do not consider it a doctrine of the Chuch, no matter how popular it may be or have been, or how much support it might have received from past leaders of the Church. We tend criticise the Catholic Church for believing in non-canonical doctrines like the Marian theology etc., but we have a few of our own, this being one of them.

Edited September 17, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

This seems to be contradictory. How can a pronouncement of a prophet of the Lord, whom the Lord didn't care to correct, be considered speculative and not official?

The Lord does not always correct the mistakes we make, even those made by prophets. It can be a test for us, to see if we are following the a prophet blindly, or allowing ourselves to be guided by the Spirit.

Edited September 16, 2012 by zerinus

[cinepro]

The Lord does not always correct the mistakes we make, even those made by prophets. It can be a test for us, to see if we are following the a prophet blindly, or allowing ourselves to be guided by the Spirit.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Lord might allow the prophet to be mistaken in order to see who will figure it out via the spirit and not obey him (as opposed to just following him "blindly").

Can you give a single example from the last 100 years when the Lord has allowed the Prophet to make a mistake in order to test whether we are "following blindly" or being "guided by the spirit"?

Edited September 17, 2012 by cinepro

[zerinus]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Lord might allow the prophet to be mistaken in order to see who will figure it out via the spirit and not obey him (as opposed to just following him "blindly").

Can you give a single example from the last 100 years when the Lord has allowed the Prophet to make a mistake in order to test whether we are "following blindly" or being "guided by the spirit"?

First of all you need to understand that I am talking about errors in doctrine, not errors in leading or directing the Chirch. There is a difference between the two. Secondly, the Lord Himself acknowledges that the leaders of the Church may on occasion err in doctrine:

D&C 1:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

There are a number of points here that should be noted. Firstly, it acknowledges that the leaders of the Church may err in doctrine, and that their errors can be made known (and it is made known through the revelations scriptures that are given). Secondly, it says that their ability to be "instructed" and "receive knowledge from time to time" (which might prevent them from "erring in doctrine") depends on two factors: their humility, and their "seeking wisdom". If they are not always as humble as they should be, or if they don't "seek wisdom" because they think they already "know it" (or worse still, because they think they don't need to know it), they are not going to be "instructed," or "receive knowledge from time to time," and consequently they are going to err in doctrine. And if they do, it can be "made known" through the revelations that are already given. That is the message of the above scriptures.

Now I didn't quite say that the Lord will deliberately allow (or cause) the Prophet to err in order to test us. What I am saying is that the Prophet may on occasion err in doctrine, and his error not be corrected due to a combination of factors as stated above, in which case it becomes a test for us to see if we are abiding in the truth, and have enough light in ourselves to detect such errors and not be misled by them. It is not God's policy that we should live on borrowed light.

Now you were asking me to give you specific examples of when the Prophet (and other Church leaders) have made mistakes in doctrine. Well I can tell you that those examples are more numerous than you might think; but I am not going to tell you what they are! Why should I? If you don't already know what they are, or don't have the wherewithal to find out for yourself, you would be better off remaining in your state of blissful ignorance.

Do you remember the parable of the Ten Virgins? Those who had oil in their lamps could not lend to those who didn't. They had to go and buy for themselves. You are asking me lend you oil from my lamp! I am afraid I can't. You will have to go and get some for yourself, or do without!

Edited September 17, 2012 by zerinus

[cinepro]

Now you were asking me to give you specific examples of when the Prophet (and other Church leaders) have made mistakes in doctrine. Well I can tell you that those examples are more numerous than you might think; but I am not going to tell you what they are! Why should I? If you don't already know what they are, or don't have the wherewithal to find out for yourself, you would be better off remaining in your state of blissful ignorance.

[mfbukowski]

Now you were asking me to give you specific examples of when the Prophet (and other Church leaders) have made mistakes in doctrine. Well I can tell you that those examples are more numerous than you might think; but I am not going to tell you what they are! Why should I? If you don't already know what they are, or don't have the wherewithal to find out for yourself, you would be better off remaining in your state of blissful ignorance.

Those General Authorities have a lot of nerve, that's all I have to say.

How dare they not clear their talks with Zerinus first?

Dude, whatever credibility you ever had is, well let's say, just not doing too well.

Edited September 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Bikeemikey]

I think the more the church tries to distance itself from certain doctrines, older (much older) members won't recognise the church they were baptised into. And the new members won't recognise some of the doctrines Joseph Smith restored.

Nicely phrased... We should teach the BOM once every four years and the D&C for two... wrap up the four year cycle with the OT and NT combined. BOM is historical testimony. The D&C is the resotred gospel.

[MiserereNobis]

If you want to believe that fine, but it would just be a lot simpler to postulate that God "remembers" who is a priest and who is not, and that never goes away because God doesn't forget.

Interesting way of phrasing it. I'll ponder this for a while.

We of course do not believe that. If one is unworthy - poof- no priesthood!

How do you deal with unworthy priesthood holders who keep it a secret and continue to perform ordinances? If a sealer (is that the right term?) in a temple is secretly having an affair, are the marriages then invalid? What about someone who ordains someone else to the priesthood. If he is secretly unworthy, then he cannot pass on the priesthood, which then means that the person he ordained cannot pass on the priesthood and then the whole thing blooms exponentially.

If unworthiness makes the priesthood go "poof," then I'd bet there are people in the LDS church who think they have the priesthood but do not, who think they are baptized but are not, who think they are married but are not.

[cinepro]

Interesting way of phrasing it. I'll ponder this for a while.

How do you deal with unworthy priesthood holders who keep it a secret and continue to perform ordinances? If a sealer (is that the right term?) in a temple is secretly having an affair, are the marriages then invalid? What about someone who ordains someone else to the priesthood. If he is secretly unworthy, then he cannot pass on the priesthood, which then means that the person he ordained cannot pass on the priesthood and then the whole thing blooms exponentially.

If unworthiness makes the priesthood go "poof," then I'd bet there are people in the LDS church who think they have the priesthood but do not, who think they are baptized but are not, who think they are married but are not.

We've discussed this here before, and it is a well accepted (and as you point out, logically necessary) belief that even the most sinful Priesthood holder can perform ordinances and they must be considered valid.

Usually this theory is accompanied with some kind of ramification for the unworthy officiator, like the sins of the people being placed on him.

Church policy confirms this idea, since no ordinances are ever re-done after the worthiness of the officiator is questioned. For example, I have been in two wards where men were subsequently convicted of child molestation (arguably the worst sin out there), yet none of the baptisms or priesthood ordinations they had performed needed to be redone.

Edited September 21, 2012 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

Interesting way of phrasing it. I'll ponder this for a while.

How do you deal with unworthy priesthood holders who keep it a secret and continue to perform ordinances? If a sealer (is that the right term?) in a temple is secretly having an affair, are the marriages then invalid? What about someone who ordains someone else to the priesthood. If he is secretly unworthy, then he cannot pass on the priesthood, which then means that the person he ordained cannot pass on the priesthood and then the whole thing blooms exponentially.

If unworthiness makes the priesthood go "poof," then I'd bet there are people in the LDS church who think they have the priesthood but do not, who think they are baptized but are not, who think they are married but are not.

Well there are two answers to that, one that I believe and one that some others believe.

What I believe:

God knows the intentions of our hearts and even if you are sealed by a sinful man God will not hold that against YOU but against him for HIS hypocrisy. The Atonement of Christ makes up for all the consequences of mistakes on this earth.

That's it. No fancy ontology of "marks on your spirit". Simple and direct. God knows and takes care of it. Deus ex machina? Maybe, but guess what? There IS a Deus in the machina.

What others believe:

Those who are a bit more literalistic than I am believe that the "keys" of the priesthood would then revert to the next in authority who is righteous. So say Bob is the sinful sealer. Dave is the temple president who gave Bob the authority to seal. God allows the authority from Dave to do the sealing.

I think that is a bit messy, but many believe that.

Overall:

So Catholics could believe that first one- that God just lets it happen anyway so that earnest people can be married etc. even with a sinful priest. In fact that is the way most Catholics probably understand it. But of course the theology behind it is always what messes with everything, in my opinion. The theology has to invent an ontological change, or a "mark" on the priest's soul which never goes away regardless of wrong doing. Now they have to defend the philosophical background for all that mechanism, and the philosophical explanation never really makes sense, and is forced to draw on 2000 year old philosophy.

So just why not go with "God takes care of it?"

To me that is the superiority of the Mormon position. If we want to make up machinery to explain it all- that's fine, but there is no "doctrine" which locks us into some odd philosophical position.

[mfbukowski]

It is the illusion that there is some "reality" beyond God's permission to do ordinances which gives rise to the pseudo problem.

It is ultimately applying the belief in a scientific reality of the spirit which causes this. This is not to say the spirit is not "real"- but clearly it is not scientifically observable.

You can't go out and check your "Priest-o-scope" to see if a person has a dot or lack of dot on his soul- to understand that God makes up for our failings.

That belief is called "The Atonement". We happen to actually believe in that.

But on the other hand, it does put a burden on one who would perform an ordinance unworthily.

I mean what would Catholics do with someone who deliberately unworthily takes Communion as a mockery of God? Same thing. Maybe one might say that he has an "indelible mark" on his soul, but come on- that's kindergarten stuff. That would be a pretty amazing set of crayons that could make a mark on your soul!

Edited September 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

So Catholics could believe that first one- that God just lets it happen anyway so that earnest people can be married etc. even with a sinful priest. In fact that is the way most Catholics probably understand it.

And that is the official doctrine. The idea that a priest in mortal sin cannot confect the Sacraments is a condemned heresy. Confecting the Sacraments in a state of mortal sin is itself yet another sin, but the Sacrament remains valid.

But of course the theology behind it is always what messes with everything, in my opinion. The theology has to invent an ontological change, or a "mark" on the priest's soul which never goes away regardless of wrong doing. Now they have to defend the philosophical background for all that mechanism, and the philosophical explanation never really makes sense, and is forced to draw on 2000 year old philosophy.

What can we say; we're a 2000 year-old Church that likes old things...

So just why not go with "God takes care of it?"

You mean, why don't we just say it is a mystery?

To me that is the superiority of the Mormon position. If we want to make up machinery to explain it all- that's fine, but there is no "doctrine" which locks us into some odd philosophical position.

And thus no doctrine to have to define or defend when one asks what is the LDS doctrine on this or that position. Makes it pretty easy, eh?

[MiserereNobis]

That belief is called "The Atonement". We happen to actually believe in that.

I hope you are not questioning the Catholic belief in the Sacrifice of the Cross, because we most certainly do believe it. It is the center of our religion, my friend.

But on the other hand, it does put a burden on one who would perform an ordinance unworthily.

Indeed it does, as I pointed out above. It would be yet another mortal sin on their soul.

I mean what would Catholics do with someone who deliberately unworthily takes Communion as a mockery of God?

Such a person is engaged in a sacrilege and will be held accountable to God.

Maybe one might say that he has an "indelible mark" on his soul, but come on- that's kindergarten stuff. That would be a pretty amazing set of crayons that could make a mark on your soul!

Now, now, you can make your points without mocking. Let's treat each other's doctrines like we'd like our own doctrines to be treated -- with respect despite disagreement.

As for a mark being made on a soul, God has the means. He created us and He is omnipotent and He is able to do whatever He pleases. His omnipotence is something we Catholics actually believe in.

[mfbukowski]

You mean, why don't we just say it is a mystery?

OOOOO- good one! I'll even give you a point for that one!

[mfbukowski]

Now, now, you can make your points without mocking. Let's treat each other's doctrines like we'd like our own doctrines to be treated -- with respect despite disagreement.

Agreed- my apologies!

Gotta go watch the space shuttle land at LAX.

(news at 11..... )

[mfbukowski]

And thus no doctrine to have to define or defend when one asks what is the LDS doctrine on this or that position. Makes it pretty easy, eh?

Yeah but that doesn't really help any at all. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have every detail down to the nth degree, but if God did not confirm it to the believers, it would all be a big pile of books and that's all.

If Catholics didn't FEEL something when they took Communion- something deep inside- all the Magesteria in the world would not amount to a hill of beans.

The difference is that Mormons can account for this phenomena itself- we believe that there is some truth in all religions and that some are better than others, but that God will lead us to the truth.

If God did not confirm the truth of Catholicism (or- sorry- "what truth there is in Catholicism" - which is a lot) no one would be Catholic.

We can account for the truth of Catholicism as seen in the testimonies of its believers, but Catholics cannot account for any truth in Mormonism, even in the testimony of its believers.

For all our lack of doctrine, we can account for what really matters- how we can know ANY church is the right one for us. And that is fundamental. If you personally don't know that God has called you as a believer to his church- what good is church at all?

It all becomes just mumbo jumbo that someone else made up and you were raised in. That's just as true for Mormons who don't have testimonies of course.

If you don't have a testimony and if your faith is not based on some direct message from God, you've got nothing. We account for that and indeed it is one of our cornerstones. If you do not know in your heart that Jesus is the Christ- you might as well be on your knees in front of the Spaghetti Monster- it makes about as much sense.

PS- the shuttle landing thingy was great! Good to have something to wave a flag about again! Hooray for nationalism!

Edited September 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

Yeah but that doesn't really help any at all. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have every detail down to the nth degree, but if God did not confirm it to the believers, it would all be a big pile of books and that's all.

If Catholics didn't FEEL something when they took Communion- something deep inside- all the Magesteria in the world would not amount to a hill of beans.

I think what you are saying is that God confirms truth no matter where it is located -- and I would tend to agree. However, I'm not sure if I agree that the confirmation of truth is always emotion-based. Emotions are volatile things and are very susceptible to external stimuli. In Catholicism, we call them spiritual consolations. They console us and help us move along, but if we base our spiritual life on them then when they take a break, as they always do, we are doomed. In fact, the mystics over and over warn against seeking spiritual consolations. St. John of the Cross went so far as to call them dangerous.

I think God confirms truths many ways, with spiritual consolation being one, but with the light of reason and the gift of faith being another.

By the way, did you see in the news awhile back that a guy in Austria was allowed by the high court to wear a pasta strainer on his head for his driver's license photo? He claimed a religious exception because he was a pastafarian and followed the FSM. Ha!

The difference is that Mormons can account for this phenomena itself- we believe that there is some truth in all religions and that some are better than others, but that God will lead us to the truth.

We might phrase it differently, but Catholics say the same. Truth is truth, wherever it is found (even if it is found in neo-Platonism...)

If God did not confirm the truth of Catholicism (or- sorry- "what truth there is in Catholicism" - which is a lot) no one would be Catholic.

Agreed, as long as it is understood, as I stated above, that the confirmation of truth for Catholics is not just emotional response, nor should it be limited to one.

We can account for the truth of Catholicism as seen in the testimonies of its believers, but Catholics cannot account for any truth in Mormonism, even in the testimony of its believers.

Well, I'm not so sure about this one. You might have expand a bit. There are things in the LDS church that are obviously true -- stances on morality being one blatant area. I hear traditional Catholics speaking highly of the LDS ethic all the time. Truth is truth. However, the testimony of the members usually includes things that, from a Catholic point-of-view, are not and could not be true, such as "I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet."

For all our lack of doctrine, we can account for what really matters- how we can know ANY church is the right one for us. And that is fundamental. If you personally don't know that God has called you as a believer to his church- what good is church at all?

It all becomes just mumbo jumbo that someone else made up and you were raised in. That's just as true for Mormons who don't have testimonies of course.

Yes, there are advantages to being raised in a religion and advantages to being a convert. I, like you, am a convert, and my path to Catholicism actually took me through Buddhism, too.

[Calm]

However, I'm not sure if I agree that the confirmation of truth is always emotion-based.

I would be surprised if emotion is what mfb means by "FEEL". Rather I suspect he means "experience". The Spirit can be an intellectual experience as well as an emotional one and even at times a physical experience.

[mfbukowski]

I would be surprised if emotion is what mfb means by "FEEL". Rather I suspect he means "experience". The Spirit can be an intellectual experience as well as an emotional one and even at times a physical experience.

You got it. I was speaking of impressions- the feeling of peace and "rightness" one might feel or know- whatever word you like. Just as you can feel that "something is fishy" in a story or situation where you feel uncomfortable for perhaps reasons you cannot quite grasp fully intellectually, you can feel at peace or at home in a place you have never been before, kind of like John Denver

But of course the feeling can be much more than that. I was discussing this last night with my buddy ordinance workers and I told them about an experience I had where I had prayed for an answer very earnestly and suddenly I felt as my spirit had been thrust into a stream of warm overwheliming peace and love, as tangible as if I had been put in a warm shower, yet the feeling was inside my very being. It had a very definite beginning, like someone throwing a switch and I was very conscious that this was coming from an intelligence outside me- it was nothing I was "making up" nor could I. It was a gift confirming that what I had decided was compatible with God's will for me- that was part of it as well.

When one comes up over a hill, or out of a tunnel, into an incredibly beautiful vista- how does one know that that vista is "beautiful"? Does one see the vista and add it up logically and say - yes- this has all the elements of what we call beauty so this must be "beautiful"?

No, one just knows instantly- sees the scene and simultaneously knows it is "beautiful". That is the way I knew instantly it was from God.

What was amazing was that my brothers, instead of questioning it or being surprised, just nodded knowingly.

Been there done that.

[shalamabobbi]

Whoops President Hinkley must have goofed again when he cites Joseph and Lorenzo... http://www.lds.org/g...ery=king follet

On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342–62; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1.)

Wow that sneaky prophet hid it right in a General Conference address.

"Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe."

http://www.lds.org/g...ery=king follet

Do we get our own solar system, galaxy, or universe?

A created universe is a universe with a beginning BTW all you BB haters..