Scrutinizing general conference

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 Having lived through that era, I always understood that the ban would end when the time was right, and it did. What evidence do you have that ssm will be embraced in the future? Where in any of the past or current statements on ssm do we find this significant disclaimer?

 

The question I was answering was about revelation being reversed.  If clinging to Brigham Young’s failed prophecy about when it would happen helps you justify it, that’s fine. 

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Those who are confident SSM will eventually be embraced by the Church are banking on  the belief that the Church is just an organization of men, as opposed to an organization with the God of heaven literally standing at the helm, that will necessarily evolve with the times so as to allow the Church to comfortably fit in with the prevailing popular culture. They can't imagine reasonable men (for such people, human reason supplants the "outdated" notion of divine revelation) would allow the Church to be unpopular with the world by doggedly and unreasonably clinging on to what they believe is a quaint relic of what was once considered to be a pillar of Judeo-Christian morality.

I can’t speak to everyone who believes that the Church will embrace SSM but this is absolutely a false representation of me.  My belief is quite the opposite — it is that revelation will eventually lead us to where God wants us to be.  That prophets, seers, and apostles will guide us to a fullness of the gospel. 

Like Oaks, you are making this mistake of thinking that I am caving to popular culture rather than my firm belief in God’s plan.  You obviously don’t have to agree with me but it is wrong and short-sighted to misrepresent my beliefs and faith. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I can’t speak to everyone who believes that the Church will embrace SSM but this is absolutely a false representation of me.  My belief is quite the opposite — it is that revelation will eventually lead us to where God wants us to be.  That prophets, seers, and apostles will guide us to a fullness of the gospel. 

Like Oaks, you are making this mistake of thinking that I am caving to popular culture rather than my firm belief in God’s plan.  You obviously don’t have to agree with me but it is wrong and short-sighted to misrepresent my beliefs and faith. 

As Pres. Uchtdorf stated, the church is engaged in a continuing restoration. That means things can change as leaders better understand the will of God.

It is also clear from historical evidence that the church shifts culturally over time. These shifts affect practices and even doctrines that evolve. Either the church succumbs to the changing culture OR the changing culture influences the kinds of questions leaders are asking God. Different questions can leader to different answers and practices.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

iI can’t speak to everyone who believes that the Church will embrace SSM but this is absolutely a false representation of me.  My belief is quite the opposite — it is that revelation will eventually lead us to where God wants us to be.  

So that will happen in the future, but it isn't happening now?

Where is it that you think "God wants us to be?"

Quote

That prophets, seers, and apostles will guide us to a fullness of the gospel. 

I believe they will, too.  I think we just disagree about what that means.

I understand that some folks look to polygamy and the Priesthood Ban as "precedent" for what they hope will happen with homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  My sense, however, is that these don't work, that they are distinguishable and inapposite.

That said, I am open to the theoretical possibility of God revealing some very surprising things in the future.  That is the lot of being a Latter-day Saint.  But another part of that lot is . . . listening to and following the General Authorities.  If "revelation will eventually lead us to where God wants us to be," it will come through His servants.  This is why I have concerns about self-appointed agitators like Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, and so on.  I just don't think their tactics and rhetoric are the conduit for God to give revelations to His servant.

Quote

Like Oaks, you are making this mistake of thinking that I am caving to popular culture rather than my firm belief in God’s plan.  

I think there is some risk of conflating the two.  And that risk seems to increase when what a person wants A) conforms nearly perfectly with popular modern notions about gender and sexuality, but that also B) conflict with pretty much everything that the General Authorities have said since the Church was formed.

Also, is there any particular purpose for your omission of titles when speaking of General Authorities?  Is it an intentional demonstration of contempt and disrespect?  It comes across that way, but it could be something else.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 12, 2017 by smac97

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As Pres. Uchtdorf stated, the church is engaged in a continuing restoration. That means things can change as leaders better understand the will of God.

It is also clear from historical evidence that the church shifts culturally over time. These shifts affect practices and even doctrines that evolve. Either the church succumbs to the changing culture OR the changing culture influences the kinds of questions leaders are asking God. Different questions can leader to different answers and practices.

Agreed.  I think it's the latter.

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So that will happen in the future, but it isn't happening now?

Where is it that you think "God wants us to be?"

I believe they will, too.  I think we just disagree about what that means.

I understand that some folks look to polygamy and the Priesthood Ban as "precedent" for what they hope will happen with homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  My sense, however, is that these don't work, that they are distinguishable and inapposite.

That said, I am open to the theoretical possibility of God revealing some very surprising things in the future.  That is the lot of being a Latter-day Saint.  But another part of that lot is . . . listening to and following the General Authorities.  If "revelation will eventually lead us to where God wants us to be," it will come through His servants.  This is why I have concerns about self-appointed agitators like Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, and so on.  I just don't think their tactics and rhetoric are the conduit for God to give revelations to His servant.

I think there is some risk of conflating the two.  And that risk seems to increase when what a person wants A) conforms nearly perfectly with popular modern notions about gender and sexuality, but that also B) conflict with pretty much everything that the General Authorities have said since the Church was formed.

Also, is there any particular purpose for your omission of titles when speaking of General Authorities?  Is it an intentional demonstration of contempt and disrespect?  It comes across that way, but it could be something else.

Thanks,

-Smac

Obviously some things have to happen in the future.  The restoration is a process.  We didn't get everything in an instant... it has taken centuries and will take longer.

I don't know where God wants us to be.

I have and am listening to the general authorities.  I differ with you that we should "follow" them.  We should follow Christ.

While I don't agree with all of the methods employed by Dehlin or Kelly nor everything they have said, I do think that they have helped the church move forward with more openness about troubling issues.

There is definitely a risk of conflating popular culture with what God wants.  There is also a risk of conflating mortal bias and prejudice with what God wants.  As a church, we've done that before.  We could be doing it now.

You'll note that I typically write using last names for brevity.  I have no contempt for the Brethren.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Those who are confident SSM will eventually be embraced by the Church are banking on  the belief that the Church is just an organization of men, as opposed to an organization with the God of heaven literally standing at the helm, that will necessarily evolve with the times so as to allow the Church to comfortably fit in with the prevailing popular culture. They can't imagine reasonable men (for such people, human reason supplants the "outdated" notion of divine revelation) would allow the Church to be unpopular with the world by doggedly and unreasonably clinging on to what they believe is a quaint relic of what was once considered to be a pillar of Judeo-Christian morality.

I personally don't see things this way.  I think that the people who believe that the church will eventually embrace SSM do so because the Spirit is prompting them to believe that the plan of happiness is for everyone and that teaching a doctrine of celibacy rebels against everything that we have been told.  Just because a person is gay does not mean they should be denied the blessings of family not only in this life but in the eternities.  And they see this construct that if you are gay and just wait until the next life, then eventually you will want to be married to a woman.  Where have we heard that before?  And how did that work out?

The very central core of the gospel of Jesus Christ is family.  It just rings wrong for so many to assume God has singled out gay people to not take part in this important principle.  The church gets all hung up on how spirits will be created in the next life with absolutely no knowledge on how that process will take place.  And we already know that multiple males can use priesthood powers to create other worlds and anything else God needs them to do.  

Those that don't see SSM fitting into the Gospel Plan do so because they don't want it to fit in.

Personally, I don't really care whether the church embraces SSM or if they continue down the current road.  I trust God and I know that He will work this issue out with or without church leaders.

 

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

I personally don't see things this way.  I think that the people who believe that the church will eventually embrace SSM do so because the Spirit is prompting them to believe that the plan of happiness is for everyone and that teaching a doctrine of celibacy rebels against everything that we have been told.  Just because a person is gay does not mean they should be denied the blessings of family not only in this life but in the eternities.  And they see this construct that if you are gay and just wait until the next life, then eventually you will want to be married to a woman.  Where have we heard that before?  And how did that work out?

The very central core of the gospel of Jesus Christ is family.  It just rings wrong for so many to assume God has singled out gay people to not take part in this important principle.  The church gets all hung up on how spirits will be created in the next life with absolutely no knowledge on how that process will take place.  And we already know that multiple males can use priesthood powers to create other worlds and anything else God needs them to do.  

Those that don't see SSM fitting into the Gospel Plan do so because they don't want it to fit in.

Personally, I don't really care whether the church embraces SSM or if they continue down the current road.  I trust God and I know that He will work this issue out with or without church leaders.

 

This.  Excellent description of where I stand.  Thank you.

And I'll add this:  I'm perfectly fine with people disagreeing with my position and believing that I have totally misunderstood the gospel.  What I am NOT okay with is being misrepresented and cast into a false mold as Bobbieaware, Oaks, and many others have done.

Edited October 12, 2017 by rockpond

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Obviously some things have to happen in the future.  The restoration is a process.  We didn't get everything in an instant... it has taken centuries and will take longer.

I don't know where God wants us to be.

Hmm.  It seems like we have some ways in which we can discern that.

Quote

I have and am listening to the general authorities.  I differ with you that we should "follow" them.  We should follow Christ.

Hmm...

• D&C 1:38: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
• D&C 12:20: "Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you."
• D&C 21:4-5 "4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; 5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith."
• D&C 102:9: "The president of the church, who is also the president of the council, is appointed by revelation, and acknowledged in his administration by the voice of the church."
• D&C 107:22: "Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church."
• 3 Nephi 12:1: "Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power..."
• Hewbrews 13:7: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief..."

So we are to "listen" to General Authorities, but not "follow" them.  I'm not sure how that works, particularly given the foregoing passages.  Could you elaborate?

Quote

While I don't agree with all of the methods employed by Dehlin or Kelly nor everything they have said, I do think that they have helped the church move forward with more openness about troubling issues.

Which does not justify what they did.  That the Lord can extract blessings or benefits for some of his children from disobedience by some of this other children is not a justification for that disobedience.

Quote

There is definitely a risk of conflating popular culture with what God wants.  There is also a risk of conflating mortal bias and prejudice with what God wants.  As a church, we've done that before.  We could be doing it now.

Hence the need for continuing revelation, both individually and collectively.  Hence the need for prophets and apostles.

Quote

You'll note that I typically write using last names for brevity.  I have no contempt for the Brethren.

I'll take your word for it, then.  FYI, though, it comes across as disrespectful.  Writing "Elder" or "Pres." takes about .2 seconds.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 12, 2017 by smac97

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  It seems like we have some ways in which we can discern that.

Hmm...

• D&C 1:38: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
• D&C 12:20: "Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you."
• D&C 21:4-5 "4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; 5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith."
• D&C 102:9: "The president of the church, who is also the president of the council, is appointed by revelation, and acknowledged in his administration by the voice of the church."
• D&C 107:22: "Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church."
• 3 Nephi 12:1: "Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power..."
• Hewbrews 13:7: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief..."

So we are to "listen" to General Authorities, but not "follow" them.  I'm not sure how that works, particularly given the foregoing passages.  Could you elaborate?

Which does not justify what they did.  That the Lord can extract blessings or benefits for some of his children from disobedience by some of this other children is not a justification for that disobedience.

Hence the need for continuing revelation, both individually and collectively.  Hence the need for prophets and apostles.

I'll take your word for it, then.  FYI, though, it comes across as disrespectful.  Writing "Elder" takes about .2 seconds.

Thanks,

-Smac

You'll note that none of the scripture passages you cited tell us to "follow" the general authorities.  I'm interested in seeking perfection and as there has only been one perfect person to walk this earth, I'll seek to follow Him.  To the extent that our prophets, seers, and revelators point me to Him -- I'll continue to receive and heed their words (which is what those verses tell us to do).

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You'll note that none of the scripture passages you cited tell us to "follow" the general authorities.  

And another tells us to "obey."  So splitting hairs between "listening" to them but not "following" or "obeying" them seems rather unnecessary.

Quote

I'm interested in seeking perfection and as there has only been one perfect person to walk this earth, I'll seek to follow Him.  

Same here.  But "follow{ing} Him" apparently entails things like listening to the "voice of {the Lord's} servants" as being equivalent to the voice of the Lord himself, "receiv{ing}" those servants, "giv{ing} heed unto" their "words and commandments," "uph{olding}" them, "give heed unto the words" whom God has "chosen" to "minister unto {us}," and to "obey them."

Quote

To the extent that our prophets, seers, and revelators point me to Him -- I'll continue to receive and heed their words (which is what those verses tell us to do).

So you do "follow" them after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 12, 2017 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You'll note that none of the scripture passages you cited tell us to "follow" the general authorities.  I'm interested in seeking perfection and as there has only been one perfect person to walk this earth, I'll seek to follow Him.  To the extent that our prophets, seers, and revelators point me to Him -- I'll continue to receive and heed their words (which is what those verses tell us to do).

The old "no man between me and Christ" doctrine.

I have recently run into some members who like to espouse that doctrine.
Unfortunately, it's false, at least in Mormonism.  Other Christian denominations believe it, and as a result it occasionally rears its head among Church members.
But in Mormonism it is a chain from you to Christ.  Always will be.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The old "no man between me and Christ" doctrine.

I have recently run into some members who like to espouse that doctrine.
Unfortunately, it's false, at least in Mormonism.  Other Christian denominations believe it, and as a result it occasionally rears its head among Church members.
But in Mormonism it is a chain from you to Christ.  Always will be.

One would need to remove all scriptures if they believed prophets came between themselves and a God.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And another tells us to "obey."  So splitting hairs between "listening" to them but not "following" or "obeying" them seems rather unnecessary.

Same here.  But "follow{ing} Him" apparently entails things like listening to the "voice of {the Lord's} servants" as being equivalent to the voice of the Lord himself, "receiv{ing}" those servants, "giv{ing} heed unto" their "words and commandments," "uph{olding}" them, "give heed unto the words" whom God has "chosen" to "minister unto {us}," and to "obey them."

So you do "follow" them after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Regarding "obey" -- Which version of the NT are you quoting?  The KJV uses the word "remember", not obey.  Although I also have questions about Paul's wording of those who rule over you.  Is that really how we consider our priesthood leaders?  Because that's not my understanding of how the priesthood works.

Regarding D&C 1:38 -- As I've stated numerous times on threads here, I don't agree with appropriating that verse to apply to anything the Brethren ever say.  That's a dangerous position to make and problematic as soon as you start applying it to our history.

Edited October 12, 2017 by rockpond

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The old "no man between me and Christ" doctrine.

I have recently run into some members who like to espouse that doctrine.
Unfortunately, it's false, at least in Mormonism.  Other Christian denominations believe it, and as a result it occasionally rears its head among Church members.
But in Mormonism it is a chain from you to Christ.  Always will be.

I'd be interested in reading the scriptures that explain that there is a chain of men between me and my following of Christ.  My understanding is that salvation is only in and through Christ.

[rongo]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I personally don't see things this way.  I think that the people who believe that the church will eventually embrace SSM do so because the Spirit is prompting them to believe that the plan of happiness is for everyone and that teaching a doctrine of celibacy rebels against everything that we have been told.  

If a future revelation announced that the Church had been fully wrong about this, and that legally married gay people could enjoy the full blessings of the Church and ordinances, would you come back?

Interested in how the hypothetical would affect you. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Regarding "obey" -- Which version of the NT are you quoting? 

The KJV.  Hebrews 13:17:

Quote

17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

18 Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.

I'm not particularly interested in splitting hairs, or in pressing you further on the subject.

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The KJV uses the word "remember", not obey. 

Nope.  See here: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Hebrews-Chapter-13/

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Although I also have questions about Paul's wording of those who rule over you.  Is that really how we consider our priesthood leaders? 

Verb "To Rule":

Quote

13. to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over; govern:
to rule the empire with severity.

...

17. to be superior or preeminent in (a specific field or group); dominate by superiority; hold sway over:
For centuries, England ruled the seas.

The verb "obey" in the Greek (as used in Hebrews 13:17): Πείθεσθε πείθω peithō

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Because that's not my understanding of how the priesthood works.

I'm not sure what you mean.  If priesthood relates to "authority," then some obedience thereto is appropriate.  Lots of scriptures about that.

Obedience to prophetic counsel is not equivalent to worship of Christ.

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Regarding D&C 1:38 -- As I've stated numerous times on threads here, I don't agree with appropriating that verse to apply to anything the Brethren ever say. 

Nor do I.  That's an untenable and extreme interpretation.  But then, so is "I don't have to listen to the Brethren or follow their counsel, ever."

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's a dangerous position to make and problematic as soon as you start applying it to our history.

Extreme positions can be dangerous, yes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The KJV.  Hebrews 13:17:

I'm not particularly interested in splitting hairs, or in pressing you further on the subject.

Nope.  See here: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Hebrews-Chapter-13/

Verb "To Rule":

The verb "obey" in the Greek (as used in Hebrews 13:17): Πείθεσθε πείθω peithō

I'm not sure what you mean.  If priesthood relates to "authority," then some obedience thereto is appropriate.  Lots of scriptures about that.

Obedience to prophetic counsel is not equivalent to worship of Christ.

Nor do I.  That's an untenable and extreme interpretation.  But then, so is "I don't have to listen to the Brethren or follow their counsel, ever."

Extreme positions can be dangerous, yes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Got it.  When you originally cited the Hebrews 13 verse you identified it as vs 7 (which says remember) as opposed to vs 17.

I don't see priesthood authority as fitting the definitions you provided.  Priesthood authority is a privilege given by the Lord to act in His behalf.

I have never said, nor do I believe that "I don't have to listen to the Brethren or follow their counsel, ever."  Nor do I advocate misappropriation of D&C 1:38.  So I haven't taken either of those extreme positions.  Glad we at least seem to agree on that principle.

Edited October 12, 2017 by rockpond

[california boy]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

If a future revelation announced that the Church had been fully wrong about this, and that legally married gay people could enjoy the full blessings of the Church and ordinances, would you come back?

Interested in how the hypothetical would affect you. 

That is an interesting question that I am not sure I can easily answer.  I do believe, as I have stated, that I find the church a very positive place for straight families.  I think it helps people draw closer to God.  But the current church environment does nothing for someone who is gay.  It marginalizes them and puts them outside of not only the path towards God, but fellowship with other members.  For me, I have found great peace and spirituality outside the church.  In order for me to return, I would have to feel that the church would be a place where I could draw closer to God.

 I have a lot of distrust of what church leaders teach and claim.  Once that trust has been broken, it would be extremely difficult for me to rely on those leaders once again.  And if I can not rely on church leaders to guide me closer to Christ, then what value would the church actually have for me?  Certainly it is not the church that saves us, it is only Christ.  How we choose to live our lives is not dependent on any earthly organization.  You have to remember that less than 1% of the world's population finds value in church membership.  While that membership may be very important to that 1%, I don't think it is critical in any way to how God's children make their way back to God.

[kiwi57]

On 10/12/2017 at 9:28 AM, rockpond said:

Yep.

Here's the First Presidency in 1949 reassuring members that our ban that prevented them from receiving temple ordinances, being sealed, and having the priesthood was not a policy:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

29 years later it was changed ... or "all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood" thus ending the restriction.

And here is Oaks in 2017 reassuring members that our position regarding homosexuality is not a policy:

"Those who do not believe in or aspire to exaltation and are most persuaded by the ways of the world consider this family proclamation as just a statement of policy that should be changed. In contrast, Latter-day Saints affirm that the family proclamation defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur."

Will it take 29 years before this is proven wrong?

 

Apples and oranges. It was always expected that the Priesthood ban would eventually be removed. I don't see any reason to expect that the Plan of Salvation is going to be radically changed to accommodate SSM.

Elder Oaks's statement won't be "proven wrong," either in 29 years or any other time, for the very good and sufficient reason that it isn't wrong.

Sorry.

[kiwi57]

On 10/11/2017 at 2:10 PM, rockpond said:

What will you say when our current teachings regarding homosexuality are disavowed?  Will you still consider the Proclamation and Nov 2015 policy to be "revelation"?  Just wondering.

When?

Don't you mean If?

The Proclamation is a revelatory document. Its contents are definitive, canonical LDS doctrine. This is not a matter of controversy.

[kiwi57]

On 10/11/2017 at 8:56 AM, stemelbow said:

Good.  I'm not sure why people are hung up on Oak's claim of revelation.  revelation as a concept and term seems pretty fluid. 

Elder Oaks taught, from the pulpit, in General Conference, that the Proclamation is a revelatory document that contains official LDS doctrine. For believing Latter-day Saints, that is at very least good evidence that it is. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[kiwi57]

On 10/11/2017 at 1:00 PM, sunstoned said:

We have Hinckley's words.  No one can change them.  Not you or Oaks.  Oaks can spin it and try to re-write what happened, and it will probably be accepted by the membership.  But that doesn't make it true.

Yes, we have President Hinckley's words; but you're not arguing from them, because you can't. You are arguing from what he didn't say.

Nothing Elder Oaks said contradicts anything President Hinckley said.

Of course what Elder Oaks said will be rejected by some, because that's what they do. But that doesn't make him wrong.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

When?

Don't you mean If?

The Proclamation is a revelatory document. Its contents are definitive, canonical LDS doctrine. This is not a matter of controversy.

Welcome to the board, kiwi57. I look forward to your having a sufficient number of posts that I can rep them.

[kiwi57]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Welcome to the board, kiwi57. I look forward to your having a sufficient number of posts that I can rep them.

Thank you for your kind welcome.

I look forward to having that number too.