smac97 Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 14 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Anything that comes directly from the Prophet, from the pulpit, and stated as such. "Stated as such?" So if President Monson does not preface his remarks with "Thus saith the Lord ..." or "It has been revealed to me that ...", then his remarks are not revelatory? Do you differentiate between statements that are "inspired" and statements which are "revelatory/revelation"? If so, how do you so distinguish? Thanks, -Smac 1
Jeanne Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 3 hours ago, smac97 said: "Stated as such?" So if President Monson does not preface his remarks with "Thus saith the Lord ..." or "It has been revealed to me that ...", then his remarks are not revelatory? Do you differentiate between statements that are "inspired" and statements which are "revelatory/revelation"? If so, how do you so distinguish? Thanks, -Smac Well look at what we are talking about..is the Proclamation supposed to be a revelation or is it a policy. We didn't even know that the latest "policy" was a revelation till it was told at a fireside. I don't know about ward members, but I would be confused. Thus saith the Lord would be great..final..no questions asked. Why do that?
Russell C McGregor Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 3 hours ago, Jeanne said: Well look at what we are talking about..is the Proclamation supposed to be a revelation or is it a policy. Why is that a binary set? Here's a parallel question: "Is that an orange or is it a fruit?" Latter-day Saints believe that the Church is guided by revelation, and that its policies -- especially the ones most heartily despised by the PC crowd -- are put in place because they represent the will of the Lord. 3 hours ago, Jeanne said: We didn't even know that the latest "policy" was a revelation till it was told at a fireside. I don't know about ward members, but I would be confused. Thus saith the Lord would be great..final..no questions asked. Why do that? Why do what? The policy -- no scare quotes needed -- is in place for the guidance of Church leaders in carrying out their administrative responsibilities. It's not a matter of how we live our daily lives, it's a matter of how a very few leaders are directed to deal with a rather rare circumstance. 4
Teancum Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 9 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Latter-day Saints believe that the Church is guided by revelation, and that its policies -- especially the ones most heartily despised by the PC crowd -- are put in place because they represent the will of the Lord. . Is the part bolded above a new additional criteria the church has set up to distinguish what its leaders say is revelatory or not? Or is it really just the rules of the LDS Church according to Russell McGregor? 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 7 hours ago, Teancum said: Is the part bolded above a new additional criteria the church has set up to distinguish what its leaders say is revelatory or not? Or is it really just the rules of the LDS Church according to Russell McGregor? It must be the Millennium. I agree with you. .
Sleeper Cell Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 18 hours ago, Jeanne said: Well look at what we are talking about..is the Proclamation supposed to be a revelation or is it a policy. We didn't even know that the latest "policy" was a revelation till it was told at a fireside. I don't know about ward members, but I would be confused. Thus saith the Lord would be great..final..no questions asked. Why do that? Perhaps, among other reasons, it probably wouldn’t have made much of a difference for those who reject it Doesn’t D&C 132 begin with “Thus saith the Lord,“ and hasn’t it been part of our canonized scriptures for over a hundred years? Yet, IIRC, there have been LDS on this very board who have argued that polygamy was never from the Lord.
Boanerges Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 24 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said: Perhaps, among other reasons, it probably wouldn’t have made much of a difference for those who reject it Doesn’t D&C 132 begin with “Thus saith the Lord,“ and hasn’t it been part of our canonized scriptures for over a hundred years? Yet, IIRC, there have been LDS on this very board who have argued that polygamy was never from the Lord. Ah, but it is part of the canon - section 132 has not been removed as was its predecessor that defined marriage as monogamous. 1
Jeanne Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 34 minutes ago, Boanerges said: Ah, but it is part of the canon - section 132 has not been removed as was its predecessor that defined marriage as monogamous. Thank you.
Russell C McGregor Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 18 hours ago, Teancum said: Is the part bolded above a new additional criteria the church has set up to distinguish what its leaders say is revelatory or not? Or is it really just the rules of the LDS Church according to Russell McGregor? Do people have to explain the punchline of every joke to you? The bolded part is merely banter. It is not part of the rules of the Church, nor is it a criterion (please note: "criteria" is plural) the Church has set up. 2
6EQUJ5 Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: (please note: "criteria" is plural) Thanks for correcting this for Teancum, RCM. removed:language
Teancum Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 21 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Do people have to explain the punchline of every joke to you? The bolded part is merely banter. It is not part of the rules of the Church, nor is it a criterion (please note: "criteria" is plural) the Church has set up. Well it might have been funny if this and about a thousand other similar posts by you didn't demonstrate that it is likely you believe this. And here is a hint for you. If you think you weare being and are funny, you aren't. 1
Thinking Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 On 4/4/2016 at 7:20 AM, pcarthew said: Those 15 signatures at the bottom make it revelation. Those 15 signatures make it an official declaration (whatever that means). Is it binding? Is it official doctrine?
Jeanne Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) 19 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Why is that a binary set? Here's a parallel question: "Is that an orange or is it a fruit?" Latter-day Saints believe that the Church is guided by revelation, and that its policies -- especially the ones most heartily despised by the PC crowd -- are put in place because they represent the will of the Lord. Why do what? The policy -- no scare quotes needed -- is in place for the guidance of Church leaders in carrying out their administrative responsibilities. It's not a matter of how we live our daily lives, it's a matter of how a very few leaders are directed to deal with a rather rare circumstance. It is great that the Church leaders carry out the administrative responsibilities..but some of the things they do avoids spiritual responsibilities. It is not very well understood. Not baptizing little kids or even baby blessings because of parentage or homelife is just the opposite of what they said in conference..to love them..don't shut them out..to welcome them. With things like this, you might as well throw the Family Proclamation under a bus. Edited April 7, 2016 by Jeanne
Sleeper Cell Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 5 hours ago, Boanerges said: Ah, but it is part of the canon - section 132 has not been removed as was its predecessor that defined marriage as monogamou Not quite sure how this refutes my point. If anything, it would seem to support it
Boanerges Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said: Not quite sure how this refutes my point. If anything, it would seem to support it Simple. Quote and hasn’t it been part of our canonized scriptures for over a hundred years Section 132 is part of canonized scripture. Edited April 7, 2016 by Boanerges Clarified text
Russell C McGregor Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 3 hours ago, Jeanne said: It is great that the Church leaders carry out the administrative responsibilities..but some of the things they do avoids spiritual responsibilities. Really? How? 3 hours ago, Jeanne said: It is not very well understood. Well clearly something isn't. 3 hours ago, Jeanne said: Not baptizing little kids or even baby blessings because of parentage or homelife is just the opposite of what they said in conference..to love them..don't shut them out..to welcome them. Is it? Is placing someone under covenant to obey Gospel teachings the only way to love and welcome them? Even when they are minor children in the primary care of adults who are living in a state of continuous opposition to those covenants? So that placing them under such covenants would be destructive of their home lives? Can't you think of any better way to welcome such children than that? 3 hours ago, Jeanne said: With things like this, you might as well throw the Family Proclamation under a bus. I don't agree. Which may have something to do with the fact that I actually uphold the Proclamation and believe in its principles.
Sleeper Cell Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 15 hours ago, Boanerges said: Section 132 is part of canonized scripture. We seem to be talking past each other. I agree with you that 132 is part of our canonized scripture. Do you agree with me that some LDS -- including some on this very board -- have argued that polygamy was never from the Lord despite the fact that 132 is part of our canonized scripture? If so, why should we believe that those who argue that the Proclamation is not from the Lord would change their minds if it were canonized at next conference?
Boanerges Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 35 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said: We seem to be talking past each other. I agree with you that 132 is part of our canonized scripture. Do you agree with me that some LDS -- including some on this very board -- have argued that polygamy was never from the Lord despite the fact that 132 is part of our canonized scripture? If so, why should we believe that those who argue that the Proclamation is not from the Lord would change their minds if it were canonized at next conference? Yes, I am one who does not believe polygamy is of God and was never a revelation. Hence, and I believe I did state this elsewhere in the thread, canonizing the Proclamation would make no difference to them (me).
Russell C McGregor Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 On 4/7/2016 at 8:26 AM, Teancum said: Well it might have been funny if this and about a thousand other similar posts by you didn't demonstrate that it is likely you believe this. The sole world authority on what I actually believe says that you are, um, "mistaken." On 4/7/2016 at 8:26 AM, Teancum said: And here is a hint for you. If you think you weare being and are funny, you aren't. De gustibus non est disputandum.
6EQUJ5 Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: De gustibus non est disputandum. This was awesome! Thanks, Russell. Quote Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. — George Orwell 1
Sleeper Cell Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 43 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: 5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: De gustibus non est disputandum. This was awesome! Thanks, Russell. Quote Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. — George Orwell “Never use someone else’s words if you can express your own opinions in your own words.” -- Sleeper Cell
6EQUJ5 Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 13 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said: Don't' go after RCM like that Sleeper! He was just using a commonly used phrase.
Recommended Posts