False Doctrine At Conference

[SeekingUnderstanding]

“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.

While we may have some minor disagreement on what constitutes the "weightier matters" I certainly do not disagree with any thing you said here.  Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

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

same for me!

My point is that once you have started the road you are traveling you can't go halfway. Halfway is dangerously confusing.

[teddyaware]

You rock DB, that'll show those skeptics!

That's exactly what Jacob said to Nephi after Nephi shocked Laman and Lemuel by the power of God...

54 And it came to pass that I stretched forth my hand unto my brethren, and they did not wither before me; but the Lord did shake them, even according to the word which he had spoken. And my brother Jacob said, "you rock Nephi, that'll show those skeptics!" (1 Nephi 17)

[DBMormon]

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?

 

He did not ask me to keep his name or the conversation confidential but since it was a private conversation I have prsonally chosen not to share his name while acknowledging the jist of the conversation.  He would not have to share how he came by the information.  He is closer to the situation than needing to get filled in second hand.

[stemelbow]

He did not ask me to keep his name or the conversation confidential but since it was a private conversation I have prsonally chosen not to share his name while acknowledging the jist of the conversation.  He would not have to share how he came by the information.  He is closer to the situation than needing to get filled in second hand.

I wish I was a cool as you sometimes. As it is though I matter very little and I kinda like that too.

[DBMormon]

There is no such footnote in the Ensign address.

 

Citing a confidential source within the Church as a means to browbeat it?   Sorta like "Double Secret Probation," wouldn't you agree?  

 

You may or may not be correct with your claim of a confidential promise to you.  You might be telling the truth.  You might have misheard it.  You might be exaggerating.  You might be not telling the truth.   To me, the issue is frivolous.

 

But, I hope that someday you see that your credibility takes a beating when you buttress your assertion with a source we can't possibly contravene and then we can see for ourselves that there is no footnote.  Best to keep "confidential sources" to one's self.

 

Unless one also holds onto such correspondence and while I certainly would never prove it to you, I could indeed prove it.  That much is certain.  so say what you want but to say it is unproveable is a false assumption.

[DBMormon]

I wish I was a cool as you sometimes. As it is though I matter very little.

 

God has a different opinion.

[Bob Crockett]

Unless one also holds onto such correspondence and while I certainly would never prove it to you, I could indeed prove it.  That much is certain.  so say what you want but to say it is unproveable is a false assumption.

I don't think your post is all that credible. 

 

Using a confidential source from an institution to impeach the institution is about as frivolous as it gets.

 

But, you're not alone.  I've seen plenty of people here and elsewhere cite an undisclosed general authority's statement as a means to embarrass the Church.

 

I'd say, however, that if you brought your concerns to the Ensign's editorial staff and it published the Ensign version of the talk nothwithstanding your concerns, it means your concerns were not worth noting. 

Edited May 30, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[CV75]

He did not ask me to keep his name or the conversation confidential but since it was a private conversation I have prsonally chosen not to share his name while acknowledging the jist of the conversation.  He would not have to share how he came by the information.  He is closer to the situation than needing to get filled in second hand.

Though he didn't have to, did he share how he came by the information? In what way is he close to the situation?

[DBMormon]

Though he didn't have to, did he share how he came by the information? In what way is he close to the situation?

use your imagination. 

[DBMormon]

I don't think your post is all that credible. 

 

Using a confidential source from an institution to impeach the institution is about as frivolous as it gets.

 

But, you're not alone.  I've seen plenty of people here and elsewhere cite an undisclosed general authority's statement as a means to embarrass the Church.

 

I'd say, however, that if you brought your concerns to the Ensign's editorial staff and it published the Ensign version of the talk nothwithstanding your concerns, it means your concerns were not worth noting. 

 

again, your charitable view assumes I am being dishonest when I have not.  You seem to make a hobby of that.  Take me at my word if you like, I wont lose sleep because you doubt me.  My wife know the conversation.  My father in law is aware of it.   And the message sits in my email folder.  I could email Tacenda and Kevin Christensen the facts and you would still likely blow it off.  So why bother... move on!

[stemelbow]

God has a different opinion.

God has a different opinion from what I have? No chance in hell. oh wait...

Edited May 30, 2014 by stemelbow

[Bob Crockett]

again, your charitable view assumes I am being dishonest when I have not.  You seem to make a hobby of that.  Take me at my word if you like, I wont lose sleep because you doubt me.  My wife know the conversation.  My father in law is aware of it.   And the message sits in my email folder.  I could email Tacenda and Kevin Christensen the facts and you would still likely blow it off.  So why bother... move on!

Nowhere else on this board have I said you are dishonest.  

 

There is no footnote.  

 

I don't give a hoot about the April 6 issue myself.  But I seriously question your statement.  If you were claiming an inside source to say that Sandra Tanner was a secret believer in the Church, but you're not free to identy that person, I'd respond with mocking derision.  Sorry.

[CV75]

use your imagination. 

The only reason I can think of for your curt response is that I have offended you in some way by my questions. I did not intend to do that. As i said before, I do not doubt your report, but rather trying to understand the kind of communication you're describing.

 

I haven't the connections you do and your sharing this offers some insight into how those close to Church leadership situtaions comunicate with those not so closely involved. And because I haven't the conenctions or the experience with this sort of thing, my imagination isn't coming up with anything--and I prefer to go to the source (you) for some factual information.

 

So: did he share how he came by the information? In what way is he close to the situation?

Edited May 30, 2014 by CV75

[Bob Crockett]

DB:  You've indicated you have your information by correspondence but you are not free to disclose the source.

 

Simply cut and paste the text of the correspondence here so that we can all see it.  Redact names if that makes you feel better.

 

I think you are mistaken.   Just because I disagree with your proofs doesn't mean that I condemn you as dishonest.   Thick skins are helpful around here.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

 

Are we sure that the Lord has directed only men to hold priesthood offices or is Elder Oaks just repeating what he assumes to be true (similar to Elder Bednar here). I've applied Alma 32 to Elder Oak's statement and found it to be false for me. I've also searched the scriptures and known revelations and have found no reference to where the Lord directed "only men" to hold the priesthood. Further, in a talk with 16 footnotes, Elder Oaks didn't have one for this central point that he made. Does Elder Oaks know a reference?

 

Alma 32.

 

So, you now claim to receive revelation contrary to those who hold the keys of the priesthood in the church.  

 

Anyway, as I noted elsewhere:

 

You are confusing us with the historic Christian church which does not carry the keys of the priesthood, and only relies on their particular interpretation of the Bible. Not every revelation is contained nor need to be written in canonized scripture.

 

Elder Oaks made this whole issue quite clear.  You find fault with his statements, but consider the possibility that, perhaps, you are the one who is being tested.  As I have commented to others, perhaps this is not the church for you.  There are many others where you can find common ground.

Edited May 30, 2014 by cdowis

[DBMormon]

The only reason I can think of for your curt response is that I have offended you in some way by my questions. I did not intend to do that. As i said before, I do not doubt your report, but rather trying to understand the kind of communication you're describing.

 

I haven't the connections you do and your sharing this offers some insight into how those close to Church leadership situtaions comunicate with those not so closely involved. And because I haven't the conenctions or the experience with this sort of thing, my imagination isn't coming up with anything--and I prefer to go to the source (you) for some factual information.

 

So: did he share how he came by the information? In what way is he close to the situation?

 

Not trying to be curt.  Rather I am at the end of what I can say.  Suffice it to know that this person would be as close to the situation as one could be without being Elder Bednar.  In regards to how he came by the info that this issue is more complex than one first thinks, my guess is that many in his group are aware that the issue isn't so simple.

[CV75]

Not trying to be curt.  Rather I am at the end of what I can say.  Suffice it to know that this person would be as close to the situation as one could be without being Elder Bednar.  In regards to how he came by the info that this issue is more complex than one first thinks, my guess is that many in his group are aware that the issue isn't so simple.

OK we're good.

 

What does it mean for a person to "be as close to the situation as one could be without being Elder Bednar?" I don't understand what that means.

 

My 2nd question isn't about his coming by the "info that this issue is more complex than one first thinks," only if he shared how he came by the information "that it would be addressed as a footnote in the ensign."

[Bob Crockett]

Not trying to be curt.  Rather I am at the end of what I can say.  Suffice it to know that this person would be as close to the situation as one could be without being Elder Bednar.  In regards to how he came by the info that this issue is more complex than one first thinks, my guess is that many in his group are aware that the issue isn't so simple.

Sounds like you were dealing with a very irresponsible person, to lead you on like that.

[CV75]

While we may have some minor disagreement on what constitutes the "weightier matters" I certainly do not disagree with any thing you said here.  Thanks.

Not that we need to discuss it at length here, but where have we disagreement on what consitutes the weightier matters? When I use the term, I'm thinking only of the areas in which the keys are given. For example, Christ (through John the Baptist) restored and delegated the key for baptism but there is no such equivalent for vital statistics (even though the Church uses them in genealogy and temple work) or political processes (even though the Church engages in them).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Alma 32.

 

So, you now claim to receive revelation contrary to those who hold the keys of the priesthood in the church.

 

Please note, I have not claimed "revelation" on the matter and certainly don't expect my view to be binding on the church. I don't bring it up with my priesthood leaders (though if they asked my opinion I would share it) and I don't teach it in the lessons and talks that I give. Tell me, do you think the holy ghost and Alma 32 provide a means to find truth?

 

 

Anyway, as I noted elsewhere:

 

You are confusing us with the historic Christian church which does not carry the keys of the priesthood, and only relies on their particular interpretation of the Bible. Not every revelation is contained nor need to be written in canonized scripture.

 

And as noted elsewhere including extensively in this thread, often what seems to be today's revelation turns out to be tomorrow's "folklore." When things are not canonized, they have a documented tendency to change and in some instances be entirely disavowed as the theories of men.

 

 

Elder Oaks made this whole issue quite clear.  You find fault with his statements, but consider the possibility that, perhaps, you are the one who is being tested.  As I have commented to others, perhaps this is not the church for you.  There are many others where you can find common ground.

 

I don't find fault with Elder Oak's statements. I disagree with them. Is that allowed in the church you attend? Apparently not and thank you for invitation to leave the church. I pay a full tithe, hold two callings, faithfully hometeach, volunteer to clean the church, and in other ways try to be active. Perhaps I should run your invitation by my bishop and ask what he thinks. Tell me Charles, do you sustain Elder Uchtdorf as a prophet seer and revelator? 

 

To those who have separated themselves from the Church, I say, my dear friends, there is yet a place for you here.

Come and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result.

snip

Some might say, “I just don’t fit in with you people in the Church.”

 

If you could see into our hearts, you would probably find that you fit in better than you suppose. You might be surprised to find that we have yearnings and struggles and hopes similar to yours. Your background or upbringing might seem different from what you perceive in many Latter-day Saints, but that could be a blessing. Brothers and sisters, dear friends, we need your unique talents and perspectives. The diversity of persons and peoples all around the globe is a strength of this Church.

 

Is your invitation here in keeping with Elder Uchtdorf's guidance?

Thanks,

John

Edited May 30, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Not that we need to discuss it at length here, but where have we disagreement on what consitutes the weightier matters? When I use the term, I'm thinking only of the areas in which the keys are given. For example, Christ (through John the Baptist) restored and delegated the key for baptism but there is no such equivalent for vital statistics (even though the Church uses them in genealogy and temple work) or political processes (even though the Church engages in them).

Just my suspicion I guess. As I am in complete agreement with your list of weightier matters(judgment, mercy, and faith, Nephi might add baptism, repentance and enduring to the end), I doubt we would be in complete agreement with how that could be interpreted. For instance, if I had a son who were gay, while allowing him agency, I would not try to persuade him to stay in the church or lead a celibate life. As Joseph said, "Happiness is the design and purpose of our existence" and Nephi taught "men are that they might have joy." It is my belief that for many gay people, the path the church offers provides neither of these. I don't want to debate this issue in this thread and merely mention it as example of where we might differ.

[CV75]

Just my suspicion I guess. As I am in complete agreement with your list of weightier matters(judgment, mercy, and faith, Nephi might add baptism, repentance and enduring to the end), I doubt we would be in complete agreement with how that could be interpreted. For instance, if I had a son who were gay, while allowing him agency, I would not try to persuade him to stay in the church or lead a celibate life. As Joseph said, "Happiness is the design and purpose of our existence" and Nephi taught "men are that they might have joy." It is my belief that for many gay people, the path the church offers provides neither of these. I don't want to debate this issue in this thread and merely mention it as example of where we might differ.

I see -- I do think the "plan of happiness" is a one of the "weightier matters of the law" (of the Gospel--D&C 88:78; 104;18--examples of temporal and spiritual law, which are ultimately the same "pure religion and undefiled"...). Perhaps on another thread!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I see -- I do think the "plan of happiness" is a one of the "weightier matters of the law" (of the Gospel--D&C 88:78; 104;18--examples of temporal and spiritual law, which are ultimately the same "pure religion and undefiled"...). Perhaps on another thread!

Indeed. Peace Brother.

[cdowis]

 

Please note, I have not claimed "revelation" on the matter and certainly don't expect my view to be binding on the church. I don't bring it up with my priesthood leaders (though if they asked my opinion I would share it) and I don't teach it in the lessons and talks that I give. Tell me, do you think the holy ghost and Alma 32 provide a means to find truth?

 

Yes, and it is called "revelation".

 

 

 

And as noted elsewhere including extensively in this thread, often what seems to be today's revelation turns out to be tomorrow's "folklore." When things are not canonized, they have a documented tendency to change and in some instances be entirely disavowed as the theories of men.

 

OK, you feel that the church is sometimes governed by folklore.

 

 

 

I don't find fault with Elder Oak's statements. I disagree with them. Is that allowed in the church you attend? Apparently not and thank you for invitation to leave the church. I pay a full tithe, hold two callings, faithfully hometeach, volunteer to clean the church, and in other ways try to be active. Perhaps I should run your invitation by my bishop and ask what he thinks. Tell me Charles, do you sustain Elder Uchtdorf as a prophet seer and revelator? 

 

Yes I do, and have demonstrated that many times on this forum.  Do you support the First Presidency as having the keys to the priesthood, and that they govern the church through revelation and not "folklore".

 

 

Is your invitation here in keeping with Elder Uchtdorf's guidance?

 

It is consistent with Elder LeGrand Richards guidance.  "If you are unhappy with the church, you should find one where you will be happy" (in his biography)

 

I am not inviting you do anything but to act in consistency with your belief that the church is sometimes governed by folklore.  I invite you to stay, but to look deep inside of yourself in some of the posts you have made.  Alma 32 is revelation, and if that revelation contradicts what is taught in the church, you have a very important decision to make.

 

You are treading down the  path of becoming "an accuser of the brethren".  Perhaps that is a topic you should discuss with the bishop, or not.  Talk with him about your experience with Alma 32 and the church policies, how the leaders sometimes govern by folklore.

Thanks,

John

 

 

Edited May 31, 2014 by cdowis