Scrutinizing general conference

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

Sons of Abel or sons of Adam? 

The Gospel Topics essay cites Young's speech to the 1852 joint legislature as the origin of the ban.  Here is a quote from that address:

"Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off."

From the JoD, another quote from Young:

"Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin 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. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. He has placed life and death before his children, and it is for them to choose. If they choose life, they receive the blessings of life; if they chose death, they must abide the penalty. This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come."

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have wondered whether William McCary's conduct at Winter Quarters played a part in the origins of the ban.  Several researchers have suggested as much. 

Very sad if that's the case.

In addition to Edward Kimball not mentioning it, I don't recall Lester Bush mentioning it in his "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine" article.

 

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Gospel Topics essay cites Young's speech to the 1852 joint legislature as the origin of the ban.  Here is a quote from that address:

"Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off."

From the JoD, another quote from Young:

"Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin 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. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. He has placed life and death before his children, and it is for them to choose. If they choose life, they receive the blessings of life; if they chose death, they must abide the penalty. This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come."

Wow..just wow.  The quote for JoD sounds direct and permanent. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

You mean revelation? (bold mine)  Because as you well know it wasn't perceived as policy but that it came from the Lord/God. 

As you well know, policy can also come from the Lord through revelation. And it can change the same way. For example, Jesus' temporary ban on preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Tacenda writes:

Quote

You mean revelation? (bold mine)  Because as you well know it wasn't perceived as policy but that it came from the Lord/God. 

The problem is though that Brigham Young believed this (perceived it) because he followed a specific interpretation of the Old Testament. He never suggested that he had ever received a personal revelation on the subject, and when it came up, he referred regularly back to certain Old Testament narratives. And he accepted that interpretation as correct, and by extension, the policy as the revealed word of God (by virtue of it's being an interpretation of scripture).

So how should we describe this? Shouldn't we want to distinguish between an interpretation that Brigham Young accepted as revelation and an interpretation that we now reject as being revealed?

[kiwi57]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

Out of curiosity, where do I find this principle in our canon:

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

I know it has been taught before, I think originally by Talmage, but I don't know that it exists in our canon.  If so, I'd like to know where.

I think Ether 3:16 pretty much makes that clear.

[kiwi57]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

All those speak to the creation of males and females in the mortal sphere.  And they speak to the continuation of marital relationships which supports the idea that gender continues into the eternities as does Section 138.

It seems tougher to find something that supports the idea that gender was a part of our pre-mortal spirit identity.  Although, I have to say that gender being both a premortal and eternal characteristic is something that I just naturally believed long before 1995.  I don't think I could imagine anything else.  I just can't think of anywhere it's spelled out in the scriptures.  Maybe we just are meant to arrive at it logically. (Emphasis added - K57)

Or maybe we are supposed to understand it by revelation, as Peter said.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

I think Ether 3:16 pretty much makes that clear.

That’s a good one.  Not super specific but, as I said earlier, I have a hard time imagining gender-less spirits.  Especially when it comes to Christ. 

[california boy]

On 10/13/2017 at 10:45 AM, Bernard Gui said:

"Members like you"? That's an even better conversation starter. Here's what other members "like me" have said.

Boy you really had to work hard to take offense with me saying members that believe like you.  Did you think you were the only one that wants to throw the second half of Brigham Young's quote under the bus?  

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [Salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.” The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints.

And...from President Hinckley...

  Quote

On this occasion he raised the question before his Brethren—his Counselors and the Apostles. Following this discussion we joined in prayer in the most sacred of circumstances. President Kimball himself was voice in that prayer. I do not recall the exact words that he spoke. But I do recall my own feelings and the nature of the expressions of my Brethren. There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. The Spirit of God was there. And by the power of the Holy Ghost there came to that prophet an assurance that the thing for which he prayed was right, that the time had come, and that now the wondrous blessings of the priesthood should be extended to worthy men everywhere regardless of lineage.

Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing.

It was a quiet and sublime occasion.

There was not the sound “as of a rushing mighty wind,” there were not “cloven tongues like as of fire” (Acts 2:2–3) as there had been on the Day of Pentecost. But there was a Pentacostal spirit, for the Holy Ghost was there.

No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the Spirit whispered with certainty into our minds and our very souls.

What you are pointing out is EXACTLY what I have been talking about. You as well as church leaders knew what had been taken as a revelation to Brigham Young said very clearly WHEN that ban would be lifted.  It was not vague.   It didn't say some day in the future, it said exactly WHEN in the future blacks would be allowed to receive the priesthood.  The fact that any prophet was praying about this revelation means that they questioned this whole revelation to actually  be the word of God.

There was something inherently telling them that to discriminate against anyone simply because of how they were born is WRONG and not in keeping with all the rest of the teachings of the Gospel.  It was that Holy Spirit witnessing to them that Brigham Young was wrong and he had allowed cultural influences of his time to be louder than the voice of God. Church leaders really didn't believe this ban and the timing of it's lifting to be a revelation from God.  And this wrong had to be corrected.  So they did.  And the Spirit witnessed to them that Brigham Young was clearly wrong in what he claimed came from God.

President Kimball's statement “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,”  could only mean church leaders didn't believe the whole revelation.  Something is not right.  So they threw the second half of the revelation under the bus in order to correct this grievous error.  Perhaps they were counting on members like you who so desperately wanted this policy/doctrine which by 1978 was pretty clearly understood as being wrong and not in keeping with the gospel to end, then perhaps they wouldn't remember what the revelation actually said and when that ban would be lifted.  Close your eyes, hold your nose ignore the second half of the revelation and thank God this wrong had finally ended.

So I would like to finish by asking you this simple question.  Do you believe that God revealed "until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth."

Or do you believe that God revealed that the priesthood ban would be lifted sometime before that event? 

Edited October 14, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

21 hours ago, Rain said:

 

Sons of Abel or sons of Adam? 

Sorry, should have read sons of Able

"until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth"

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

What you are pointing out is EXACTLY what I have been talking about. You as well as church leaders knew what had been taken as a revelation to Brigham Young said very clearly WHEN that ban would be lifted.  It was not vague.   It didn't say some day in the future, it said exactly WHEN in the future blacks would be allowed to receive the priesthood.  The fact that any prophet was praying about this revelation means that they questioned this whole revelation to actually  be the word of God.

There was something inherently telling them that to discriminate against anyone simply because of how they were born is WRONG and not in keeping with all the rest of the teachings of the Gospel.  It was that Holy Spirit witnessing to them that Brigham Young was wrong and he had allowed cultural influences of his time to be louder than the voice of God. Church leaders really didn't believe this ban and the timing of it's lifting to be a revelation from God.  And this wrong had to be corrected.  So they did.  And the Spirit witnessed to them that Brigham Young was clearly wrong in what he claimed came from God.

President Kimball's statement “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,”  could only mean church leaders didn't believe the whole revelation.  Something is not right.  So they threw the second half of the revelation under the bus in order to correct this grievous error.  Perhaps they were counting on members like you who so desperately wanted this policy/doctrine which by 1978 was pretty clearly understood as being wrong and not in keeping with the gospel to end, then perhaps they wouldn't remember what the revelation actually said and when that ban would be lifted.  Close your eyes, hold your nose ignore the second half of the revelation and thank God this wrong had finally ended.

So I would like to finish by asking you this simple question.  Do you believe that God revealed "until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth."

Or do you believe that God revealed that the priesthood ban would be lifted sometime before that event? 

Isn't it a shame that it's entirely non-parallel to the "same sex marriage" situation?

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by kiwi57
Trimmed quoted material.

[Gray]

On 10/13/2017 at 9:23 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Other than an argument from silence, you have no way to substantiate this claim.

At the same time, we have the very recent affirmation from Elder Oaks, a participant in the writing and publishing of the proclamation, and a signatory to it, (and one of 15 men sustained as prophets, seers and revelators) that it was indeed revelatory.

Ergo: Affirmation by a participant and signatory nullifies supposition based on silence.

 

An argument from silence is valid when context dictates that something surely would have been said had it been believed at the time. It's a strange omission from president Hinckley, if he really had believed it to be a revelation ("revelatory" is apparently something different from revelation, a softer and broader category, a signifying of some evolution on what is meant by the idea of communication from God to church leaders).

Edited October 14, 2017 by Gray

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

An argument from silence is valid when context dictates that something surely would have been said had it been believed at the time. It's a strange omission from president Hinckley, if he really had believed it to be a revelation ("revelatory" is apparently something different from revelation, a softer and broader category, a signifying of some evolution on what is meant by the idea of communication from God to church leaders).

Why must it have been said if it was believed at the time? Why is it strange that President Hinckley didn't describe it in exactly the same words as Elder Oaks?

President Hinckley was focused on the content of the document. Elder Oaks was talking about the circumstances of its production. Of course they are going to say different things about it, and nothing either of them said (or didn't say) discredits anything the other said.

If you're looking for an argument that allows people to reject the Proclamation but still claim to be faithful Latter-day Saints, I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that, Gray.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Why must it have been said if it was believed at the time? Why is it strange that President Hinckley didn't describe it in exactly the same words as Elder Oaks?

President Hinckley was focused on the content of the document. Elder Oaks was talking about the circumstances of its production. Of course they are going to say different things about it, and nothing either of them said (or didn't say) discredits anything the other said.

It goes against interest of the organization to withhold information that would establish the authority more firmly about the proclamation.  It's probably safe to conclude that while President Hinckley believed it to be an accurate summary of LDS doctrines, it was just a restatement, not a revelation. Elder Oaks has obviously come to feel differently.

 

2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

If you're looking for an argument that allows people to reject the Proclamation but still claim to be faithful Latter-day Saints, I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that, Gray.

I don't care one way or the other about that, but if I were looking for an argument I'd point to the temple recommend questions, which omit any mention of it.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Why must it have been said if it was believed at the time? Why is it strange that President Hinckley didn't describe it in exactly the same words as Elder Oaks?

President Hinckley was focused on the content of the document. Elder Oaks was talking about the circumstances of its production. Of course they are going to say different things about it, and nothing either of them said (or didn't say) discredits anything the other said.

If you're looking for an argument that allows people to reject the Proclamation but still claim to be faithful Latter-day Saints, I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that, Gray.

Why is it strange...?  Because the document doesn’t claim to be a revelation.  It claims to be the words of the 15 men who signed it. I think we ought to start by reading what it actually says:  “WE proclaim...” and it is signed by 15 men. 

And because President Hinckley was the only man on the planet at the time who held the authority to receive revelation for the entire church.  Seems that if the Lord had come and spoken to him (or all 15) he might have made reference to that rather than producing a document with authorship claimed by 15 mortal men and then waiting two decades for someone to claim that it was revelation. 

[Avatar4321]

Some of you will do anything to avoid the truths of the proclamation.

Elder Oaks warned that how we treat the proclamation would be a test for our generation. I don't think it would be wise to write it off

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Why is it strange...?  Because the document doesn’t claim to be a revelation.  It claims to be the words of the 15 men who signed it. I think we ought to start by reading what it actually says:  “WE proclaim...” and it is signed by 15 men. 

And because President Hinckley was the only man on the planet at the time who held the authority to receive revelation for the entire church.  Seems that if the Lord had come and spoken to him (or all 15) he might have made reference to that rather than producing a document with authorship claimed by 15 mortal men and then waiting two decades for someone to claim that it was revelation. 

It's a good thing that President Hinckley wasn't one of those 15 men, then.

Oh. Wait.

And just BTW: who (apart from Rockpond of course) thinks that it's a completely irrelevant coincidence that the "15 men" who signed the Proclamation just happened to be the very same "15 men" - absolutely all of them, and with no additions, omissions or amendments - who were sustained  by the Church as prophets, seers and revelators?

To you, of course, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are merely "15 men." But to believing Latter-day Saints, they are the Lord's anointed servants, and the entire body of those who hold the fullness of Priesthood keys.

Formal joint statements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve occupy a place alongside the Standard Works as official, authoritative sources of LDS doctrine. The Proclamation on the Family represents the mind and will of the LORD on the subjects that it covers.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Some of you will do anything to avoid the truths of the proclamation.

Elder Oaks warned that how we treat the proclamation would be a test for our generation. I don't think it would be wise to write it off

I’m not avoiding the truths of the proclamation.  Something doesn’t have to be a revelation to be true. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

It's a good thing that President Hinckley wasn't one of those 15 men, then.

Oh. Wait.

And just BTW: who (apart from Rockpond of course) thinks that it's a completely irrelevant coincidence that the "15 men" who signed the Proclamation just happened to be the very same "15 men" - absolutely all of them, and with no additions, omissions or amendments - who were sustained  by the Church as prophets, seers and revelators?

To you, of course, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are merely "15 men." But to believing Latter-day Saints, they are the Lord's anointed servants, and the entire body of those who hold the fullness of Priesthood keys.

Formal joint statements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve occupy a place alongside the Standard Works as official, authoritative sources of LDS doctrine. The Proclamation on the Family represents the mind and will of the LORD on the subjects that it covers.

You are wrong in your assessment of me. 

I agree that the Proclamation is church doctrine. I’ve never stated otherwise. But it does not fit what I understand revelation to be. 

And of course Pres. Hinckley was one of the 15... that is one of the reasons it is important to note that he did not declare the Proclamation to be revelation.  

You also seem to think that I am not a believing Latter-day Saint.  Again you are incorrect.  And I do sustain the Brethren as prophets, seers, and revelators as well as acknowledging the keys they hold.  I used the term “men” to differentiate from diety which is, in my definition, the fount of revelation. 

I hope that helps you understand me better. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You are wrong in your assessment of me. 

I agree that the Proclamation is church doctrine. I’ve never stated otherwise. But it does not fit what I understand revelation to be. 

And of course Pres. Hinckley was one of the 15... that is one of the reasons it is important to note that he did not declare the Proclamation to be revelation.  

You also seem to think that I am not a believing Latter-day Saint.  Again you are incorrect.  And I do sustain the Brethren as prophets, seers, and revelators as well as acknowledging the keys they hold.  I used the term “men” to differentiate from diety which is, in my definition, the fount of revelation. 

I hope that helps you understand me better. 

If Deity is the fount of revelation, then prophets, seers and revelators are its conduit — which surely you must recognize if you so sustain them. 

It is so rare a thing for the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as a council to issue an official proclamation (it has happened only five times in the history of the Church) that it seemed self evident at the time that issuing this one was an act of great moment, a revelatory act, as it were. What seems strange is that this should be questioned today, especially after one of the signatories to that document explicitly affirmed it. That it would be necessary for him to do so (and that he would be vilified in some quarters for so doing) is a comment on the rampant unbelief in this generation. 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

On 10/2/2017 at 10:44 AM, Jeanne said:

Sometimes the leadership contradict each other...not to mention..again..I didn't know the real history.  Why did I not know?  It is my fault isn't it?

Sometimes I get a little sad about how others have come to distrust the church and its leaders, and how that has led to disbelief and/or loss of testimony.

In this connection my non-member sister-in-law's atheism comes to mind. Last year when my wife and I were visiting, she credited me for having convinced her to be an atheist. At the time she said this there was no time to explore it, and I was, to tell you the truth, scared to ask.  So I went from there and wondered from time to time what I might have said, and beat myself up a bit about what it might be. I even asked my brother, and he said that that had been the first time he had heard that, too, and hadn't asked her what she was referring to. I think he was too scared to ask, himself!  He, by the way, is an active member.

Well, I finally got up the courage to ask her what it was I had said or did.  Turned out to be something completely innocuous, mostly. It was something I had said around forty years ago!  And what was it?  In the course of some conversation about religion I commented about how Christ hadn't actually been born on Christmas day, but probably more around springtime.  I think I would have provided some logical evidence about it.  I don't remember the conversation, but she clearly did, and it shattered whatever was left of her belief in God. Because if Christ hadn't actually been born on Christmas Day, then she had been lied to by her ministers and all the cultural stories about Jesus had to be a bunch of baloney.  In short, if she couldn't trust them about Christmas, she couldn't trust them about anything.

Well, it seems simple enough, in a sense. All I need to do is tell her all about the Great Apostasy. Right?  Except that might turn her off even more!  I've been puzzling over how to get her to start trusting God, at least to the extent of Alma 32, to first hope and let that enlighten her spirit unto faith. 

As far as church leaders contradicting each other, I have to laugh about that. Over the years I've developed some rather esoteric and non-standard doctrinal beliefs that might very well contradict what some General Authorities hold to as doctrine -- and I'm somewhat convinced that some of those personal beliefs are very likely true, or not far off the mark.  And just because some GA might not see it my way, well, so what?  I know the Church is true, not that it is perfect, nor is its leaders. And I know that I am not perfect, not by a long shot.

The key is this: what does God think about the LDS church?  What I think is superfluous -- although I have to reckon with my own brain, I had better in the end check in with Him. Having done so, and having received very certain intelligence as to the Church, I am willing to suspend any gripes I might have with the imperfections in the Church and in its leaders.  The happiness I have gained through this is quite remarkable.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Why must it have been said if it was believed at the time? Why is it strange that President Hinckley didn't describe it in exactly the same words as Elder Oaks?

President Hinckley was focused on the content of the document. Elder Oaks was talking about the circumstances of its production. Of course they are going to say different things about it, and nothing either of them said (or didn't say) discredits anything the other said.

If you're looking for an argument that allows people to reject the Proclamation but still claim to be faithful Latter-day Saints, I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that, Gray.

But it wasn’t believed to be revelation at thr time. It was believed to be a statement of belief    A summation of existing doctrine and a proclaimation of that doctrine.   When Elder Oackard called it a revelation in his conference talk it was noticeably taken out. Why did he get no support for that statement from the brotheren?

i fully believe that the POF is church doctrine. I don’t think anyone questioned that.   And I fully believe that everyone in that room that voted on the wording thought that they were pronouncing the will of God.  But God did not author it nor did it come about thuough revelation.  It came about through a committee consensus.  If some need to call that a revelation then who cares really. It doesn’t change how it was written or who wrote it.  

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Sometimes I get a little sad about how others have come to distrust the church and its leaders, and how that has led to disbelief and/or loss of testimony.

In this connection my non-member sister-in-law's atheism comes to mind. Last year when my wife and I were visiting, she credited me for having convinced her to be an atheist. At the time she said this there was no time to explore it, and I was, to tell you the truth, scared to ask.  So I went from there and wondered from time to time what I might have said, and beat myself up a bit about what it might be. I even asked my brother, and he said that that had been the first time he had heard that, too, and hadn't asked her what she was referring to. I think he was too scared to ask, himself!  He, by the way, is an active member.

Well, I finally got up the courage to ask her what it was I had said or did.  Turned out to be something completely innocuous, mostly. It was something I had said around forty years ago!  And what was it?  In the course of some conversation about religion I commented about how Christ hadn't actually been born on Christmas day, but probably more around springtime.  I think I would have provided some logical evidence about it.  I don't remember the conversation, but she clearly did, and it shattered whatever was left of her belief in God. Because if Christ hadn't actually been born on Christmas Day, then she had been lied to by her ministers and all the cultural stories about Jesus had to be a bunch of baloney.  In short, if she couldn't trust them about Christmas, she couldn't trust them about anything.

Well, it seems simple enough, in a sense. All I need to do is tell her all about the Great Apostasy. Right?  Except that might turn her off even more!  I've been puzzling over how to get her to start trusting God, at least to the extent of Alma 32, to first hope and let that enlighten her spirit unto faith. 

As far as church leaders contradicting each other, I have to laugh about that. Over the years I've developed some rather esoteric and non-standard doctrinal beliefs that might very well contradict what some General Authorities hold to as doctrine -- and I'm somewhat convinced that some of those personal beliefs are very likely true, or not far off the mark.  And just because some GA might not see it my way, well, so what?  I know the Church is true, not that it is perfect, nor is its leaders. And I know that I am not perfect, not by a long shot.

The key is this: what does God think about the LDS church?  What I think is superfluous -- although I have to reckon with my own brain, I had better in the end check in with Him. Having done so, and having received very certain intelligence as to the Church, I am willing to suspend any gripes I might have with the imperfections in the Church and in its leaders.  The happiness I have gained through this is quite remarkable.

When church leaders claim something came from God himself when it didn’t then they are revealed for what they actually are, just men trying like the rest of us to figure out what is actually true and what is just the belief of men

So what do you think God thinks about the church?

 Personally, I think God feels like it is doing a fairly good job for less than 1% of his children.  Sometimes the church gets things wrong, but overall it is generally headed in the right direction. 

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If Deity is the fount of revelation, then prophets, seers and revelators are its conduit — which surely you must recognize if you so sustain them. 

I've noticed that recently there seems to be a parallel vocabulary arising, in which people appear to be using familiar Mormon terminology, but with a subtext that is not always apparent. Thus, there are some who insist that they really truly do sustain the brethren "in all patience and faith." We might take that to mean that the sustainers have faith that they will someday come to understand why the Lord directs the brethren as He does, and patiently look for the purity of the message despite the imperfections of the vessel. Certainly that's what many of us would take it to mean. But what it really means is that the sustainers have faith that the Lord will someday show the brethren the error of their ways, at which time they will become as fully enlightened as the sustainers themselves; for which moment of epiphany they, the sustainers, are patiently waiting; whereupon, they will magnanimously forgive the brethren for being so recreant for so long.

I really truly hope that this is not how the term is being used here.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

You are wrong in your assessment of me. 

I hope you are right.