False Doctrine At Conference

[DBMormon]

The "error" talked about is not the day but the claim of revelation to know the day.

exactly.  And there is a big difference between knowingly teaching False Doctrine and accidentally doing so - Even to claim a revelation when there has not been one is a false Doctrine in and of itself as any teaching from that revelation has a false stamp of approval.

[mfbukowski]

True Doctrine is "true teachings that come from God"

I would suggest you really think about what this means, and how we know what they are.

Define each word for yourself, because I think you are making huge assumptions with every word.

Edited May 29, 2014 by mfbukowski

[DBMormon]

DBMormon is no neophyte. He has served as a bishop and ought to be fully aware of the implications of the term false doctrine. During his term of service he could conceivably  -- perhaps even did -- have had occasion to convene a disciplinary council for someone committing that very offense. That he blatantly accuses an ordained apostle of it is unconscionable.

 

If I did so, half my high priests group would have been sent packing. 

For my sake define "False Doctrine"

 

hmmm let's use the LDS way of defining it

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/false-doctrine?lang=eng

 

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you: Deut. 4:2 . ( Deut. 12:32 ; Prov. 30:6 ; Rev. 22:18–19 . )

vision of their own heart, and not … of the Lord: Jer. 23:16

shall teach … false and vain and foolish doctrines: 2 Ne. 28:9

they went forth preaching false doctrines: Alma 1:16

blinded by the subtle craftiness of men: D&C 123:12

 

These are some that may or may not apply fully but at the least back my proposition that teaching a supposed truth and that it came by revelation when it indeed didn't can within reason be defined as such.

[DBMormon]

Suppose there had been another statement, an authoritative one from Joseph Smith,  that more explicitly identifies April 6 as the anniversary of Christ's birth. Would you still bet all of your money on D&C 20:1 being the one he was referring to?

It's weird that in adding 5 sources to verify his statement in the ensign that they didn't add this secret one you speak of.

[DBMormon]

Still awaiting a response to this.

 

So now you bank on a document that doesn't exist... talk about smoke and mirrors!

[DBMormon]

Scott,

 

I'm not sure what version of history of the church you are using, but the section you are quoting, but here is what is actually recorded (see here):

 

You'll notice that most of your bolded section " That Christ, who is called both the “Firstborn” and the “beginning” of God’s creation in both the Bible and early Christian texts, should be born on the day commemorating the creation is especially significant, for it was through him that God created the earth" is commentary not in the original source. It appears to be added by John Tvedtnes at Mormon Interpreter (see footnote 60). 

 

I don't think the commentary can be supported from the text itself however and apparently neither does John sense he did not draw the conclusion from the quote that Jesus was born April 6. 

 

Awwwwwww.... that's too bad, he almost had something

[DBMormon]

I'm so bad at understanding what people mean sometimes, but what do you mean there was some private acknowledgement? How are you aware of it? And which Ensign upcoming shall we expect this to be addressed as a correction?

 

I raised the issue and got a response that the brethren acknowledged the issue and would place a footnote in the ensign to acknowledge it was not a clear cut as stated in the talk.  Instead....  it is the Church that  chose to double down.

[DBMormon]

I would suggest you really think about what this means, and how we know what they are.

Define each word for yourself, because I think you are making huge assumptions with every word.

I am going off Elder Christofferson and LDS newsroom and how hey define it. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Referring back to the multitude of the pure in heart that Alma invited to plant the seed, I think we need to recognize that the Holy Ghost has born witness to others also, so that we can align with them and them with us.

 

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27; the wherewithal to accomplish this level of unity is found in verses 1-5). And of course this is why we have the Church, “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be …tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” (Ephesians 4:12-16).

 

If we have planted and nourished the seed of the framework of the Church (that being prophets and apostles with the keys to join, fit and work the whole body), we will find ourselves aligned with it (them). We may not be aligned in all matters in which the keys are exercised, but we can certainly seek that level of edification and perfection.

Again I enjoyed your post (and gave you a rep point for it). From my perspective, the Qof12 and FP do not represent all of the Lords servants or prophets on the earth that we are striving to achieve a unity of faith with. As an example, during the civil rights movement we had prophets like Martin Luther King Jr sharing a dream with us on what we could become, while we had Apostles countering that the civil rights movement was led by communists, that supporting the civil rights movement might lead to an early untimely death and that by the grace of God righteous blacks would be relegated to servitude in Celestial kingdom.

I freely admit that I might be in error on woman's ordination or LGBT issues, but I cannot follow that which I "know"* to be false.

*know here is used in the Alma 32 sense and refers to my personal convictions...

Edited May 29, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

Again I enjoyed your post (and gave you a rep point for it). From my perspective, the Qof12 and FP do not represent all of the Lords servants or prophets on the earth that we are striving to achieve a unity of faith with. As an example, during the civil rights movement we had prophets like Martin Luther King Jr sharing a dream with us on what we could become, while we had Apostles countering that the civil rights movement was led by communists, that supporting the civil rights movement might lead to an early untimely death and that by the grace of God righteous blacks would be relegated to servitude in Celestial kingdom.

I freely admit that I might be in error on woman's ordination or LGBT issues, but I cannot follow that which I "know"* to be false.

*know here is used in the Alma 32 sense and refers to my personal convictions...

Of the countless servants of God that have received and shared His Light throughout the ages (for they are not against “us” -- Luke 9:50), the only ones that that possess the keys of the kingdom are those very few who are sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. This is the case once the kingdom of God “is come upon [us]”, or established with Christ at the Head (Luke 11:20). On that particular point, He gets a bit inflexible (verse 23) toward those who know better, or those who have knowledge of and access to the Restored Gospel and Church.

 

So I think a good thing for someone to find out is whether the Lord thinks he knows better than to be taking the position he does!

 

Yes, we only know what we know. So sometimes there is going to be disagreement over whom to sustain and follow (in the broader sense that you used the term “prophets”) depending on what we “know.” But in addition to such personal convictions, for reasons I stated earlier I think there is also a call for us to obtain a shared knowledge and faith as a “multitude of the poor in heart”.

 

I think a shared recognition of where the Lord has placed the keys of the kingdom is a good foundation for keeping disagreements, whether they are about birth dates or complex societal matters, from distracting us from the real benefit of the keys. For example, it makes it easier to see where the real value of Elder Bednar’s talk lies. If we sustain and apply those principles and testimony, there would be more faith in the Lord and less worry about whether the whole LDS leadership is going to fail us again and again (individually and collectively). More faith in the Lord will bring about His purposes, and we have been encouraged to "hasten the work" with Him.

[CV75]

the brethren acknowledged the issue and would place a footnote in the ensign to acknowledge it was not a clear cut as stated in the talk.

Who told you that?

[mfbukowski]

I am going off Elder Christofferson and LDS newsroom and how hey define it.

Why?

Is that doctrinal?

Suddenly you go all fundamentalist on me?

You wouldn't accept that talk if it was about anything else. Perhaps it is false doctrine

I actually think it is a great talk insofar as it goes. It takes more than 500 words to define truth.

[DBMormon]

Who told you that?

That part is confidential, so either believe me or don't.  Either way I stand on what I have said.  I was assured it would be addressed. 

[DBMormon]

Why?

Is that doctrinal?

Suddenly you go all fundamentalist on me?

You wouldn't accept that talk if it was about anything else. Perhaps it is false doctrine

I actually think it is a great talk insofar as it goes. It takes more than 500 words to define truth.

 

You got me.... I admit it... I am a cafeteria Mormon.  I am fundamentalist when it supports my view, liberal when it helps my case, Figurative if I need it to be, and rogue when it helps me feel like I am putting it to the man.

[stemelbow]

I raised the issue and got a response that the brethren acknowledged the issue and would place a footnote in the ensign to acknowledge it was not a clear cut as stated in the talk.  Instead....  it is the Church that  chose to double down.

Ah I see, thanks.

[mfbukowski]

You got me.... I admit it... I am a cafeteria Mormon.  I am fundamentalist when it supports my view, liberal when it helps my case, Figurative if I need it to be, and rogue when it helps me feel like I am putting it to the man.

[frank_jessop]

Does anyone have the Truman G Madsen series "Joseph Smith, the Prophet" series? My vague memory tells me that Madsen covers the official "day" of the modern establishment/restoration of the Church. My vague memory also causes me to believe Joseph Smith and an other person went outside and Joseph Smith looked toward the sky and commented on the event. (My vague recollection also causes me to remember that the story was set at night).

[DBMormon]

glad you took it the way it was intended and not as offensive.  Trust me when I tell you I appreciate your dialogue

[CV75]

That part is confidential, so either believe me or don't.  Either way I stand on what I have said.  I was assured it would be addressed. 

I’m more interested in the process than in verifying yourr eport.

 

Did he ask you keep his name confidential? Did he ask you to share his answer? If he did, what was his explanation for asking you? How did he say he came by the information he gave to you?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Of the countless servants of God that have received and shared His Light throughout the ages (for they are not against “us” -- Luke 9:50), the only ones that that possess the keys of the kingdom are those very few who are sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. This is the case once the kingdom of God “is come upon [us]”, or established with Christ at the Head (Luke 11:20). On that particular point, He gets a bit inflexible (verse 23) toward those who know better, or those who have knowledge of and access to the Restored Gospel and Church.

I have a slightly different take. In Luke 9, someone who was following Jesus, but was not perceived to be in the flock by the apostles (those with the keys). Jesus told John, “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

 

In Luke 11, after casting out demons, Christ says "Whoever is not with me is against me." It is possible to follow Christ and not be in lock step with those that hold the keys. 

[DBMormon]

I’m more interested in the process than in verifying yourr eport.

 

Did he ask you keep his name confidential? Did he ask you to share his answer? If he did, what was his explanation for asking you? How did he say he came by the information he gave to you?

 

I have had correspondence with a couple of top leaders over the past 2 years.  I also have made many connections through the podcast to other departments of the Church for example "Church history Department" and "BYU Professors".  When I run into something I can't work out and which is frustrating - I will from time to time correspond with those 3 groups.  I have also received messages out of the blue by phone by a top leader and encouraged to send him a message whenever I desired and felt the need. 

 

When the April 6th thing happened, I shot a message over stating that while I understand a false assumption being held, That I was hopeful it would be addressed.  I was informed that based on this individual's understanding, that it would be addressed as a footnote in the ensign.

[Tacenda]

I have had correspondence with a couple of top leaders over the past 2 years.  I also have made many connections through the podcast to other departments of the Church for example "Church history Department" and "BYU Professors".  When I run into something I can't work out and which is frustrating - I will from time to time correspond with those 3 groups.  I have also received messages out of the blue by phone by a top leader and encouraged to send him a message whenever I desired and felt the need. 

 

When the April 6th thing happened, I shot a message over stating that while I understand a false assumption being held, That I was hopeful it would be addressed.  I was informed that based on this individual's understanding, that it would be addressed as a footnote in the ensign.

You rock DB, that'll show those skeptics! 

[CV75]

I have a slightly different take. In Luke 9, someone who was following Jesus, but was not perceived to be in the flock by the apostles (those with the keys). Jesus told John, “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

 

In Luke 11, after casting out demons, Christ says "Whoever is not with me is against me." It is possible to follow Christ and not be in lock step with those that hold the keys. 

Luke 9:30 reads, “Forbid him [a “prophet” in the broad sense] not: for he that is not against us is for us.” I think that is a fair example of how the Light of Christ works as well as the more specific case (in this instance) of using faith in true principles to perform miracles with or without the priesthood.

 

I think the difference in Chapter 11 is that Christ is taking the challenge to His authority very personally, and so uses the “me” pronoun. It is His authority, which He delegates rather specifically for the upkeep of His Church on the earth. Hence, “… no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you… He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.”

 

“Lockstep” sounds a lot to me like “blind obedience,” and I don’t think that is what the Lord is asking for in either of these verses. I don’t think His statements are a call to agree with Him or His servants on birthdates, social mores and politics (or history, or science, etc.) above sustaining “the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.” Because of this, I don’t see disagreement on matters such as these to imply that the weightier matters warrant speculation and doubt. Of course these weightier matters are governed by those with the keys, so I think that would include sustaining them in their apostleship as well.

[CV75]

I have had correspondence with a couple of top leaders over the past 2 years.  I also have made many connections through the podcast to other departments of the Church for example "Church history Department" and "BYU Professors".  When I run into something I can't work out and which is frustrating - I will from time to time correspond with those 3 groups.  I have also received messages out of the blue by phone by a top leader and encouraged to send him a message whenever I desired and felt the need. 

 

When the April 6th thing happened, I shot a message over stating that while I understand a false assumption being held, That I was hopeful it would be addressed.  I was informed that based on this individual's understanding, that it would be addressed as a footnote in the ensign.

Did he ask you keep his name confidential? Did he ask you to share his answer? If he did, what was his explanation for asking you to keep confidence? How did he say he came by the information he gave to you?

[Bob Crockett]

That part is confidential, so either believe me or don't.  Either way I stand on what I have said.  I was assured it would be addressed. 

There is no such footnote in the Ensign address.

 

You probably misheard.  I'll give you that much benefit of the doubt.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Bob Crockett