Rock Waterman Excommunicated

[Tacenda]

Whatever Bluebell and Mola Ram Sola, keep avoiding the subject. And always pay your tithing even when you don't have it, if it means going to a credit union to borrow for it, do it.

True story, I worked for a credit union...a man came in and that's the reason he put down when applying for a loan. Got to pay tithing even when you have no means to pay it. Desperate measures like this to stay obedient to the current prophet.

I guess a dead prophet's words are nothing huh? Why are the president's teachings' manuals around if we really only honor the current prophet? Let's just skip doing those long gone prophets, their words are meaningless or can be manipulated to say what our current prophet said.

I know blame the loud mouths, not the curriculum writers.

[ERayR]

Whatever Bluebell and Mola Ram Sola, keep avoiding the subject. And always pay your tithing even when you don't have it, if it means going to a credit union to borrow for it, do it.

True story, I worked for a credit union...a man came in and that's the reason he put down when applying for a loan. Got to pay tithing even when you have no means to pay it. Desperate measures like this to stay obedient to the current prophet.

I guess a dead prophet's words are nothing huh? Why are the president's teachings' manuals around if we really only honor the current prophet? Let's just skip doing those long gone prophets, their words are meaningless or can be manipulated to say what our current prophet said.

I know blame the loud mouths, not the curriculum writers.

 

I can see several errors in your reasoning.  1) Instructions are to not borrow to pay tithing.  2) I don't know of any curriculum that advocates doing so.  

[Gray]

Quick example of benign use of ellipses:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-wilford-woodruff/chapter-23?lang=eng

 

 

We may trace this principle through the church and kingdom of God, and you may carry it into the family government. … It is like the vine with its limbs, its branches and its twigs [see John 15:1–11]. This is a very good figure to teach us the principle of righteousness.

 

 

 

 

Full quote, redacted portion bolded:

 

 

We may trace this principle through the Church and kingdom of God, and you may carry it into the family government, and you will find it as brother Kimball has already presented it to us. It is like the vine with its limbs, its branches, and its twigs. This is a very good figure to teach us the principle of righteousness.

 

Edited July 8, 2015 by Gray

[sethpayne]

Have you read any of his stuff or listened to his statement after he was ex'd.

 

Yes.  Much of it.  That's why I'm asking for a specific CFR.

[bluebell]

Whatever Bluebell and Mola Ram Sola, keep avoiding the subject. And always pay your tithing even when you don't have it, if it means going to a credit union to borrow for it, do it.

True story, I worked for a credit union...a man came in and that's the reason he put down when applying for a loan. Got to pay tithing even when you have no means to pay it. Desperate measures like this to stay obedient to the current prophet.

I guess a dead prophet's words are nothing huh? Why are the president's teachings' manuals around if we really only honor the current prophet? Let's just skip doing those long gone prophets, their words are meaningless or can be manipulated to say what our current prophet said.

I know blame the loud mouths, not the curriculum writers.

I didn't ignore anything. I addressed what you wanted addressed.

Why does it upset you so much that some are not as scandalized by those words as you are? Do you even believe in the necessity of paying tithing at all?

[Scott Lloyd]

I can see several errors in your reasoning.  1) Instructions are to not borrow to pay tithing.  2) I don't know of any curriculum that advocates doing so.  

To these errors, I would add her distortion of Church teaching to the effect that the Church says don't honor dead prophets. As I understand it, the instruction is that the words of living prophets trump those of dead prophets in case of contradiction if there be any (which there seldom is).

[Scott Lloyd]

I will try and remember to start using dashes then.  

I'm not trying to be a punctuation Nazi -- only to express a personal preference.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow Tacienda...(dot..dot..dot) You are quite the observant person.  Thanks for that insight.

The notion that elipses always indicate that something has been removed to "re-engineer" the text "into something else altogether"?

 

That's hardly a valuable "insight." It's quite false, as a matter of fact.

[Scott Lloyd]

Quick example of benign use of ellipses:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-wilford-woodruff/chapter-23?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

 

Full quote, redacted portion bolded:

Good example,

 

Many others could be cited.

[ERayR]

Wow Tacienda...(dot..dot..dot) You are quite the observant person.  Thanks for that insight.

 

What one finds really does depend on pov.

[sethpayne]

To these errors, I would add her distortion of Church teaching to the effect that the Church says don't honor dead prophets. As I understand it, the instruction is that the words of living prophets trump those of dead prophets in case of contradiction if there be any (which there seldom is).

 

Wait.... are you following the Benson doctrine of the McConkie doctrine?  Because they don't match up.  Elder Benson taught as you describe but Elder McConkie clearly taught that the scriptures (old prophets) *always* trump the words of modern prophets.

 

McConkie (from his Letter to Eugene England):

Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

 

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.

 

 

Elder Benson:

 

The living prophet has the power of TNT. By that I mean “Todays News Today.” God’s revelations to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore, the most important prophet, so far as you and I are concerned, is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore, the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each week in the Church Section of the Deseret News, and any words of the prophet contained each month in our Church magazines. Our marching orders for each six months are found in the general conference addresses, which are printed in the Ensign magazine.

 

I am so grateful that the current conference report is studied as part of one of your religion classes–the course entitied “Teachings of the Living Prophets,” number 333. May I commend that class to you, and suggest that you get a copy of the class manual at your bookstore, whether you’re able to take the class or not. The manual is entitled “Living Prophets for a Living Church.”

 

Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.

 

 

As I understand it, with the exception of 4 individuals, all scriptural prophets are now dead.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wait.... are you following the Benson doctrine of the McConkie doctrine?  Because they don't match up.  Elder Benson taught as you describe but Elder McConkie clearly taught that the scriptures (old prophets) *always* trump the words of modern prophets.

 

McConkie (from his Letter to Eugene England):

 

Elder Benson:

 

 

As I understand it, with the exception of 4 individuals, all scriptural prophets are now dead.

Elder McConkie, as you quoted here, noted the distinction Joseph Smith taught: that a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such.

 

So, when a living prophet speaks as a prophet (that is, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost) his words supersede any past pronouncements.

 

So, you see, there is really no conflict between what Elder McConkie said and what Elder Benson said. Thus, there is no need to make either man an offender for a word or try to manufacture strife where no strife is present.

 

Glad I could clear that up for you.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

What one finds [insightful] really does depend on pov.

Boy, ain't it the truth?

 

Incidentally, I'm guessing you inadvertently left out the word "insightful" in your post, so I took the liberty of inserting the word when I quoted you.

 

And in case Tacenda and Jeanne may be wondering,  there is nothing nefarious about inserting bracketed words for clarity, any more than there is anything nefarious about using ellipses for the sake of conciseness.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

Elder McConkie, as you quoted here, quoted the distinction Joseph Smith taught: that a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such.

 

So, when a living prophet speaks as a prophet (that is, when moved upon the by the Holy Ghost) his word supersede any past pronouncements.

 

So, you see, there is really no conflict between what Elder McConkie said and what Elder Benson said. Thus, there is no need to make either man an offender of the word or try to manufacture strife where no strife is present.

 

Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

The fact that you can't admit the clear and obvious contradiction between these two positions is, as you would say, quite "telling."

[Scott Lloyd]

The fact that you can't admit the clear and obvious contradiction between these two positions is, as you would say, quite "telling."

The real fact is that I won't admit a contradiction that is neither clear nor obvious when the context of the statements are considered.

 

That you would so strenuously resist a contextual reading is telling in itself.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

The real fact is that I won't admit a contradiction that is neither clear nor obvious when the context of the statements are considered.

 

That you would so strenuously resist a contextual reading is telling in itself.

 

I like you Scott.  I honestly do.  We couldn't disagree  more on many things but I have to admire your absolute commitment.  You will never admit to any specific error made by a General Authority.  Ever.  

 

I think you are a little nuts and you think I'm terribly wrong about these things and likely headed to a nice BBQ during the Millennium.  That's what makes this place, MDDB, so darn fun.

Edited July 8, 2015 by sethpayne

[Scott Lloyd]

I like you Scott. I honestly do. We couldn't disagree more on many things but I have to admire your absolute commitment. You will never admit to any specific error made by a General Authority. Ever.

I think you are a little nuts and you think I'm terribly wrong about these things and likely headed to a nice BBQ during the Millennium. That's what makes this place, MDDB, so darn fun.

This conversation is finished as well, except to deny that I've ever been disposed to pass eternal judgment on you. Edited July 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

Wow Tacienda...(dot..dot..dot) You are quite the observant person.  Thanks for that insight.

 

 

Yes.  The insight into the minds of those who hate the Church and are morbidly suspicious of everything it does, to the point of seeing conspiracies everywhere, is a remarkable one.

[Tacenda]

Yes. The insight into the minds of those who hate the Church and are morbidly suspicious of everything it does, to the point of seeing conspiracies everywhere, is a remarkable one.

Are you seriously kidding? Just for pointing out that three important words are left out?

[sethpayne]

This conversation is finished as well, except to deny that I've ever been disposed to pass eternal judgment on you.

 

That's unfortunate, Scott.  I generally enjoy our exchanges.

 

Very glad to know that you haven't resigned me to the BBQ yet.  I have some hope.  

Edited July 9, 2015 by sethpayne

[Tacenda]

The notion that elipses always indicate that something has been removed to "re-engineer" the text "into something else altogether"?

That's hardly a valuable "insight." It's quite false, as a matter of fact.

CFR, pretty please with sugar on top, where I said what you just attributed me saying. Or am I reading this wrong? 

 

Edited to say... that it has been asked of me if I should retract this statement, I don't understand why but ok I'll retract it.  Scott you're in the clear. 

Edited July 9, 2015 by Tacenda

[Calm]

CFR, pretty please with sugar on top, where I said what you just attributed me saying. Or am I reading this wrong?

 

Did you or did you not quote this below and add the comment about it being an "eyeopener"?

 

Anyhoo, this was an eyeopener, the three little dot thingy.

Those 3 little dots (...) called an ellipsis denotes that something material to the original has been removed from the text and has been re-engineered into something else all together[...]Lesson, always look for the ... in Mormonism, it denotes that something material to the point has been left out."

 

I bracketed my ellipsis and adding the bolding, I left out the example as immaterial to Scott's point.

Edited July 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Did you or did you not quote this below and add the comment about it being an "eyeopener"?

 

I bracketed my ellipsis and adding the bolding, I left out the example as immaterial to Scott's point.

Guilty as charged that it was in a quote of mine. I guess Scott might just have left out that I quoted it, not stated it or agreed with that portion of the quote.

So when quoting something it means I agree with or it's as if I'm saying it? Because if that is the case, we all need to be careful when quoting things.

[Calm]

How in the world do you claim not to have agreed with that portion of the quote when you specifically refer to it with approval?

 

Your eyes were opened to the "three dot thingy", not "who has the means" (if that is the phrase, going off of memory).  Generally eyeopening means you learned something new, something startling even, something you were blind to before and you accept it as truth. 

 

Since the "three dot thingy" was about how an ellipsis for Mormons was a reengineering, etc etc. and the tithing issue was only the example used to support the point about the ellipsis, how else would you expect one to interpret your comment given your introduction?  

 

this was an eyeopener, the three little dot thingy.

 

You chose to post the quote, you chose to introduce the quote with a comment of amazed approval (eyeopener, 'I was blind and now I see!').  I don't think Scott's interpretation given what you said is unreasonable or unsupported at all.

Edited July 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you seriously kidding? Just for pointing out that three important words are left out?

They are not important. In your view tell me how it changed what was said? Because I am not seeing it.

 

 

I went to the store...because I was hungry.

 

I went to the store to get some food because I was hungry.

 

 

Oh my gosh that totally changed what I said. Totally different meaning. I totally changed and "re engineered" what I had said before.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram