JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 14 minutes ago, consiglieri said: And guess which ones are jumping ship when they find out the Church has been hiding the truth? The rats of course...(sorry, couldn't resist. ) 1
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 8 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I have given you the link. You must read it yourself. Elder Packer enjoins the religious educators of the Church to teach only the faith promoting side of Church history, to not teach those negative things that he says he knows exist, but that do not promote faith. Elder Packer then suggests that if the Church educators do not do as he directs, not only their eternal salvation may be on the line, but also their temporal employment. It's all right there. In black and white. Actually, your interpretation is here in black and white - not the actual, specific quotes from Elder Packer. And since your interpretations and conclusions are questionable, I'd really prefer the actual quotes, rather than read-the-book-and-try-to-figure-out-my-reference laziness. 1
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 1 minute ago, jwhitlock said: Actually, your interpretation is here in black and white - not the actual, specific quotes from Elder Packer. And since your interpretations and conclusions are questionable, I'd really prefer the actual quotes, rather than read-the-book-and-try-to-figure-out-my-reference laziness. It's a freaking talk. Not a book. I'm sure you can manage.
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 3 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This is the lengths to which apologists will go to win an argument, I'm afraid. Disagree with you? That's pretty easy, actually.
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The rats of course...(sorry, couldn't resist. ) LOL! But the smart rats were the ones who jumped ship before it left the dock!
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 5 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: Whoops - your initial bolded statement is false. He didn't reference me at all. And the house of cards collapses. Kind of an example of the threads you're generating here. It's okay to just say you're sorry.
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 2 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: Disagree with you? That's pretty easy, actually. It's okay to just say you're sorry.
Teancum Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) 42 minutes ago, jwhitlock said: Well, it was either "flat out false" in all respects (that is what "flat out" means), or it was only partially false. Hard to be accurate if you're an "all or nothing" type of person, isn't it. Especially if you're accusing someone of adding nothing to the discussion. Fine partially false. And now you offer more mispreprsentation on how I view things. Irony as well. this is getting old though. Feel free to offer any other last thoughts. Edited January 1, 2016 by Teancum
Bobbieaware Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) 50 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Many of my responses are nonsensical. But only seemingly . . . The operative word being 'many." I'm beginning to think this board's title should be changed to "Maestro Consiglieri's Online Bloviation Station for Critical and Disaffected and Mormons." Edited January 1, 2016 by Bobbieaware
The Nehor Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 5 hours ago, consiglieri said: Thanks, Senator. But it's okay. Deep water is what I am wont to swim in. Joseph Smith was not talking about raw sewage. 1
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 It would be a loss to MDDB to yet again chase off good men, like say Consig or John Williams, or whomever else might poke their heads back in. Will it just continue here a battle of words of sophistry? With all the years of history between us, is a "Do Over" simply impossible? Have we not beat each other up enough yet? Or is this just our daily entertainment? Or am I a fool and this is all only about the lurker and agendas? 1
The Nehor Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 3 hours ago, salgare said: It would be a loss to MDDB to yet again chase off good men, like say Consig or John Williams, or whomever else might poke their heads back in. Will it just continue here a battle of words of sophistry? With all the years of history between us, is a "Do Over" simply impossible? Have we not beat each other up enough yet? Or is this just our daily entertainment? Or am I a fool and this is all only about the lurker and agendas? Oddly enough it happened a lot less with Consig not around. It is almost enough to make me believe he might be provoking it. But no, he told me with a straight face that he was only seeking the truth and is definitely not baiting everyone to gang up on him. Must be a coincidence. 4
jwhitlock Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 18 hours ago, consiglieri said: It's okay to just say you're sorry. Fine. I'll do that. You're sorry.
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, jwhitlock said: Fine. I'll do that. You're sorry. Dang I love the guitar riffs in this tune ... had to listen to it twice Edited January 1, 2016 by salgare
sunstoned Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 On 12/31/2015 at 6:55 AM, Bobbieaware said: If you are willing, could you do me a favor by going to the Brigham Young manual and the original source materials and then point out 3 of the most egregious examples of differences between the source materials and the manual? http://mit.irr.org/new-manual-sanitizes-lds-history
Bobbieaware Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, sunstoned said: http://mit.irr.org/new-manual-sanitizes-lds-history I read the anti-Mormon article you linked to and find it's a tempest in a teapot. The author of the article seems to be unaware of a principle taught by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:32 which says, "the spirits of the prophets are subject unto the prophets." This inspired teaching means that living prophets can interpret past prophets in a way that comports with present-day teachings, doctrines and policies. So, for instance, changing the the word wives to wife simply places Brigham Young's teachings on marriage into a modern framework that"s more relevant, understandable and applicable to our day. And just because the word wives is changed to wife does not mean that somehow virtually all Latter-day Saint adults are suddenly going to be put into some sort of mysterious trance and forget the extremely well-known and undeniable fact that Brigham Young had many wives. Just silly... And are you truly surprised to learn the Adam-God theory is not found in the Brigham Young manual, when it hasn't been presented in any official Church teaching manuals for well over one hundred years (for all I know it may have never been presented in any official Church manual)? (Just as an aside, I believe one day it could turn out, after more light and knowledge are received, that Brigham Young's Adam-God theory will be understood to be a more orthodox doctrine than now realized. And it could be that though true in ways not currently understood that the Adam-God theory is now deliberately numbered by the leaders as being among some of the deep Gospel mysteries God no longer wants plainly and openly taught in our day.) And that last so-called altered quote was silly for the author to reference because the first deleted passage contains perfectly sound current LDS doctrine. So by leaving out that line it's not like the editors of the Brigham Young manual were trying to hide some deep dark secret about the Church. And the remaining deleted lines refer to the Salt Lake City Endowment House that was erected and dedicated so that some ordinance work usually performed in temples could temporarily go forward before the Salt Lake Temple was completed. Once the Salt Lake Temple was completed, ordinance work at the endowment house was phased out because it was no longer needed at that "present time." By citing this quote, the author of the article overplays his hand and reveals what a nit picker he really is. What follows is the Brigham Young quote in question with the deleted portions slashed through. Why the author thought this one is a big deal is beyond me.. "There are many of the ordinances of the house of God that must be performed in a temple that is erected expressly for the purpose. There are other ordinances that we can administer without a temple. You know that there are some which you have received — baptism, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost … , such as the speaking in and interpretation of tongues, prophesying, healing, discerning of spirits, etc., and many blessings bestowed upon the people, we have the privilege of receiving without a temple. There are other blessings, that will not be received, and ordinances that will not be performed according to the law that the Lord has revealed, without their being done in a temple prepared for that purpose. … We can, AT THE PRESENT TIME, GO INTO THE ENDOWMENT HOUSE and be baptized for the dead, receive our washings and anointing, etc., for there we have a font that has been erected, DEDICATED EXPRESSLY for baptizing people for the remission of sins, for their health and for their dead friends; in this the Saints have the privilege of being baptized for their friends. We also have the privilege of sealing women to men, without a temple. THIS WE CAN DO IN THE ENDOWMENT HOUSE; but when we come to …other sealing ordinances [for the dead], ordinances pertaining to the holy Priesthood, to connect the chain of the Priesthood from Father Adam until now, by sealing children to their parents, being sealed for our forefathers, etc., they cannot be done without a temple. When the ordinances are carried out in the temples that will be erected, men [children] will be sealed to their fathers [parents], and those who have slept, clear up to Father Adam. This will have to be done because of the chain of the Priesthood being broken upon the earth" (Brigham Young manual, page 303). Shocking I tell you! Absolutely shocking! ... (Not) Edited January 2, 2016 by Bobbieaware Punctuation 1
consiglieri Posted January 2, 2016 Author Posted January 2, 2016 On 1/1/2016 at 0:44 AM, The Nehor said: Oddly enough it happened a lot less with Consig not around. It is almost enough to make me believe he might be provoking it. But no, he told me with a straight face that he was only seeking the truth and is definitely not baiting everyone to gang up on him. Must be a coincidence. In a time of universal deceit, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act.
consiglieri Posted January 2, 2016 Author Posted January 2, 2016 5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: "There are many of the ordinances of the house of God that must be performed in a temple that is erected expressly for the purpose. There are other ordinances that we can administer without a temple. You know that there are some which you have received — baptism, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost … , such as the speaking in and interpretation of tongues, prophesying, healing, discerning of spirits, etc., and many blessings bestowed upon the people, we have the privilege of receiving without a temple. There are other blessings, that will not be received, and ordinances that will not be performed according to the law that the Lord has revealed, without their being done in a temple prepared for that purpose. … We can, AT THE PRESENT TIME, GO INTO THE ENDOWMENT HOUSE and be baptized for the dead, receive our washings and anointing, etc., for there we have a font that has been erected, DEDICATED EXPRESSLY for baptizing people for the remission of sins, for their health and for their dead friends; in this the Saints have the privilege of being baptized for their friends. We also have the privilege of sealing women to men, without a temple. THIS WE CAN DO IN THE ENDOWMENT HOUSE; but when we come to …other sealing ordinances [for the dead], ordinances pertaining to the holy Priesthood, to connect the chain of the Priesthood from Father Adam until now, by sealing children to their parents, being sealed for our forefathers, etc., they cannot be done without a temple. When the ordinances are carried out in the temples that will be erected, men [children] will be sealed to their fathers [parents], and those who have slept, clear up to Father Adam. This will have to be done because of the chain of the Priesthood being broken upon the earth" (Brigham Young manual, page 303). Well, let's see. Could it be because the lines deleted from the quote are things no longer practiced or believed in the LDS Church? We no longer practice spiritual gifts in the temple (or anywhere else, for that matter). We no longer practice sealing women to men without a temple. We no longer seal "men" to their "fathers" in the sense of the law of adoption, which this was likely referencing. It is all of a piece. Past prophets are subject to deletion and correction in order to make what they said conform with current teaching and practice. This is another example of the misrepresentation of past prophets in which the LDS Church consistently engages. Thanks for providing it, Bobbie!
Bobbieaware Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: Well, let's see. Could it be because the lines deleted from the quote are things no longer practiced or believed in the LDS Church? We no longer practice spiritual gifts in the temple (or anywhere else, for that matter). We no longer practice sealing women to men without a temple. We no longer seal "men" to their "fathers" in the sense of the law of adoption, which this was likely referencing. It is all of a piece. Past prophets are subject to deletion and correction in order to make what they said conform with current teaching and practice. This is another example of the misrepresentation of past prophets in which the LDS Church consistently engages. Thanks for providing it, Bobbie! You color every believer's world with the spirit of your own unbelief and think what you see is the truth. 1) You've picked the wrong person when it comes to your claim that spiritual gifts are no longer present in the Church. I have seen truly miraculous healings, the fulfillment of very real prophesies that seemed unlikely to be fulfilled, very real visions that took place in the full light of day, the regular receipt of miraculous divine revelations - both in the temple and without, and many other powerful gifts and manifestations of the Spirit. Do you not realize you are dramatically fulfilling Paul's declaration of truth when he said the natural man is utterly blind to the things of the Spirit? 2) What don't you understand about the Endowment House being a holy place of special exception, where sacred ordinances could be performed in a temporary mini-temple -- like unto the tent tabernacle of Moses' day -- so that the work of God could go forward without having to wait to be about the Father's business until the Salt Lake City Temple was completed? 3) Just because sacred ordinances that belong to a higher order of things were practiced in an earlier day as part of the restoration of all things, and then withdrawn, that doesn't mean they won't be practiced again after the Church is purified. Edited January 2, 2016 by Bobbieaware 2
consiglieri Posted January 2, 2016 Author Posted January 2, 2016 So many excuses, so little time. You need to stop the sniping. NOW
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: In a time of universal deceit, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act. Well, at least you admit you are not searching for the truth. You have set yourself up as the author of it instead and are here to proselyte. Progress of a sort. Also, you have delusions of grandeur if you imagine that posting on an internet forum of a minority faith challenging them is revolutionary. 3
Recommended Posts