Scrutinizing general conference

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

A doctrine is an official teaching that is considered binding and authoritative. It is either plainly and unambiguously asserted in the canonical scriptures of the Church, colloquially called the Standard Works, or in joint statements of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

Sources, please? Something explicit and unambiguous will do. That is to say, it needs to be quite clear that "homosexuality" is not being used as shorthand for "homosexual behaviour."

I don't see any points that I missed.

If Mister Cook wishes to rebrand his website, I'll take him seriously enough to read his paper.

 

So does an  official statement from the First Presidency count as doctrine in your view?  Do teachings of apostles count as doctrine?

I provided a source.  Here’s another:  https://thc.utah.edu/lectures-programs/mcmurrin-lecture/PRINCE-MCMURRIN LECTURE-protected.pdf

It’s long but we’re dealing with a complex issue.  If you’d like to understand it, it will take time. 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Rain said:

I definitely agree with your first paragraph.

Trying to work out what you are saying in the second. Let me see if I have this right. If I pray, about subjects that have not been revealed yet, and I receive revelation, then I should be able to be specific about it? 

While I am not saying that in my 2^nd paragraph, think it makes sense that we should be able to be specific about anything we know. What I am referring to is only the stage of studying it out in our mind. Like your idea about knowing something by personal revelation, once we know what we’re studying and thinking about with regards to the subject of the last few pages, we should certainly be able to be specific about it and share. Now I understand why someone would not want to share specifics (too sacred, too controversial, too tender, too inconsistent with subtler strategies to influence the direction of the conversation, etc.).

So when a conversation revolves around opinions that the LDS doctrines and the family proclamation need to become more inclusive of LGBT families as heirs of exaltation, specifics resulting from personal study and analysis should be explored, considered and shared. As I pointed out earlier, there are ramifications to existing LDS doctrine and policy that underlie the proclamation, such as marriage and sealing, covenant birth and child-rearing in the covenant, and parental presiding vis-à-vis priesthood. These ideas should be specified and shared in such an important conversation. Likewise, if the discussion is about whether more apostolic, canonized revelation is needed to confirm, support or clarify existing doctrine and policy, those specifics should also be shared for further consideration.

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I actually had JLHPROF more in mind. Your response was to kiwi57, whose response had been to JLHPROF. 

I agree with kiwi’s remark: “Since it's not going to happen, I suggest that we all avoid creating conflict over a mere hypothetical.”

My apologies Scott if it seemed like I was patronizing you (although I know from experience you have a tough skin).
No offense was intended.

But I disagree with you on the polygamy comparison (and find the numbers argument irrelevant).

Prophets were declaring that polygamy would never be taken from the earth right up until the Manifesto was issued.  There were those for whom that shook their beliefs to the core and they had to decide whether to follow the Manifesto or continue practicing plural marriage.  It took a decade of contradiction before Joseph F. Smith finally ended plural marriage in the Church (mostly) and even then one of the Apostles still couldn't accept the contradiction.

You and others (like Kiwi) are declaring the Church will never allow SSM or ordain women to the Priesthood.  I don't consider it a "mere hypothetical" to consider how those of such firm belief would react.  It's no different than those who asked the Apostles who were so converted to plural marriage prior to 1890 (and from 1890-1904) how they would handle such a change.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

My apologies Scott if it seemed like I was patronizing you (although I know from experience you have a tough skin).
No offense was intended.

But I disagree with you on the polygamy comparison (and find the numbers argument irrelevant).

Prophets were declaring that polygamy would never be taken from the earth right up until the Manifesto was issued.  There were those for whom that shook their beliefs to the core and they had to decide whether to follow the Manifesto or continue practicing plural marriage.  It took a decade of contradiction before Joseph F. Smith finally ended plural marriage in the Church (mostly) and even then one of the Apostles still couldn't accept the contradiction.

You and others (like Kiwi) are declaring the Church will never allow SSM or ordain women to the Priesthood.  I don't consider it a "mere hypothetical" to consider how those of such firm belief would react.  It's no different than those who asked the Apostles who were so converted to plural marriage prior to 1890 (and from 1890-1904) how they would handle such a change.

Because general conference (the subject of the the OP) is so topical (e.g. D&C 52:2, “I, the Lord, will make known unto you what I will that ye shall do from this time until the next conference…” and from 20:62, “to do whatever church business is necessary to be done at the time.”) and “held by the elders of the church (20:81),” our efforts and faith are to “be done as it shall be counseled by the elders of the church at the conferences, according to the knowledge which they receive from time to time (58:56).” And so we “await patiently and diligently for further instructions at my general conference, saith the Lord (124:88).”

I think there is a reason the family proclamation is one of the focuses of general conference, and it is not to instigate an anticipation for it to change as plural marriage or the priesthood ban did, but rather to embrace the interrelating principles at face value, looking to the future with a sure doctrinal foundation and hope on the subject.

I also think it fair to assume that plural marriage and priesthood ban were treated the same way in the general conference forums of their day, and that these practices were eventually dropped. I see that as the key difference: marriage between a man and a woman is a revealed principle and doctrine, not just a practice. Plural marriage can be tied to this same principle, and the ban cannot. Distinguishing the differences between doctrine or principle, policy and practice is “old hat” and I think has been embedded in the administration of the Church for decades:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/03/principles?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1984/10/the-gospel-and-the-church?lang=eng

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think there is a reason the family proclamation is one of the focuses of general conference, and it is not to instigate an anticipation for it to change as plural marriage or the priesthood ban did, but rather to embrace the interrelating principles at face value, looking to the future with a sure doctrinal foundation and hope on the subject.

I also think it fair to assume that plural marriage and priesthood ban were treated the same way in the general conference forums of their day, and that these practices were eventually dropped.

I like this.  Interesting perspective.  I would completely agree that it is wrong to take a teaching of general conference as a motivation or instigator of any anticipation of change.
That would seem to be a very foolish way to view conference.

Quote

I see that as the key difference: marriage between a man and a woman is a revealed principle and doctrine, not just a practice. Plural marriage can be tied to this same principle, and the ban cannot. Distinguishing the differences between doctrine or principle, policy and practice is “old hat” and I think has been embedded in the administration of the Church for decades:

I agree that plural marriage can be tied to the doctrine of marriage but I disagree that it is just a practice, not a doctrine in and of itself.  I know that D&C 132 is explained today as being mostly about eternal marriage and only somewhat about plural marriage.  I completely disagree with that interpretation of the section.

Also, I would hesitate to be as certain as you are that the priesthood ban "practice" was not tied to any doctrine.  The Church today may disavow those doctrines, but it was considered doctrinal at the time, not just a practice.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Because general conference (the subject of the the OP) is so topical (e.g. D&C 52:2, “I, the Lord, will make known unto you what I will that ye shall do from this time until the next conference…” and from 20:62, “to do whatever church business is necessary to be done at the time.”) and “held by the elders of the church (20:81),” our efforts and faith are to “be done as it shall be counseled by the elders of the church at the conferences, according to the knowledge which they receive from time to time (58:56).” And so we “await patiently and diligently for further instructions at my general conference, saith the Lord (124:88).”

 

I think there is a reason the family proclamation is one of the focuses of general conference, and it is not to instigate an anticipation for it to change as plural marriage or the priesthood ban did, but rather to embrace the interrelating principles at face value, looking to the future with a sure doctrinal foundation and hope on the subject.

 

I also think it fair to assume that plural marriage and priesthood ban were treated the same way in the general conference forums of their day, and that these practices were eventually dropped. I see that as the key difference: marriage between a man and a woman is a revealed principle and doctrine, not just a practice. Plural marriage can be tied to this same principle, and the ban cannot. Distinguishing the differences between doctrine or principle, policy and practice is “old hat” and I think has been embedded in the administration of the Church for decades:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/03/principles?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1984/10/the-gospel-and-the-church?lang=eng

 

Per Packer’s definition in the 1985 address you linked — plural marriage as a requirement for the highest degree of exaltation and the race-based temple ban were both principles. Likewise, marriage exclusively between a man and a woman is also a principle. 

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not trying to sound patronizing.  The point is that our doctrines have been declared unalterable by prophets before and then revelation has been announced.  Regardless of how many believed or didn't there were those for whom a new revelation caused a contradiction.  They had to change their beliefs or refuse to sustain the brethren.

Heck, that's where fundamentalists came from.  Not picking on Scott intentionally.  His usual approach just fits the bill.

Sometimes God sends a revelation that shakes our core beliefs.  To pretend it can't happen to me or my core beliefs is naive.

I take a middle position on all of this. I think that it is important to on one hand speculate about what would happen if something causing such cognitive dissonance would occur in fact. I think that I would be forced to go with my personal testimony in such a case regardless of what the Brethren said. On the other hand I think it is useless to speculate about something which is highly unlikely to happen. So mentally  I'm prepared for the worst and know what I would do if I had to, but don't anticipate it happening. It's kind of like worrying about if an intruder comes into your house if you would shoot him or not. The likelihood of it happening is very slim but on the other hand one should be prepared to do what is necessary.

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I like this.  Interesting perspective.  I would completely agree that it is wrong to take a teaching of general conference as a motivation or instigator of any anticipation of change.
That would seem to be a very foolish way to view conference.

I agree that plural marriage can be tied to the doctrine of marriage but I disagree that it is just a practice, not a doctrine in and of itself.  I know that D&C 132 is explained today as being mostly about eternal marriage and only somewhat about plural marriage.  I completely disagree with that interpretation of the section.

Also, I would hesitate to be as certain as you are that the priesthood ban "practice" was not tied to any doctrine.  The Church today may disavow those doctrines, but it was considered doctrinal at the time, not just a practice.

I think D&C 132 is clearly about plural marriage, but it cannot exist without the underlying eternal principle of a man and a woman being one under covenant together (the doctrine being a set of teachings about that principle, some correct and some not), per Genesis. The various structural forms of marriage branch out of that under the priesthood keys for administration.

It is one thing to tie doctrine / a set of teachings to an eternal principle, and another to consider something to be doctrine without tying it to an underlying eternal principle. We really do not know the origin of the ban as a practice, but certainly any racist justifications have been condemned. I don't see a similar lack of connection between the family proclamation and that same eternal principle upon which D&C 132 is based.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Per Packer’s definition in the 1985 address you linked — plural marriage as a requirement for the highest degree of exaltation and the race-based temple ban were both principles. Likewise, marriage exclusively between a man and a woman is also a principle. 

I don't see where he says any of that. Let's not just assert stuff.

You had asked me to have a proxy conversation with Rain in your behalf, either because you thought what he said represented your ideas well or you wanted to brush me off LOL. Have you been following those posts, and if so, how is it going? If you haven't been following, why?

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We really do not know the origin of the ban as a practice, but certainly any racist justifications have been condemned.

I hear this a lot and I don't fully agree.
I know the Church today disavows the doctrine, but the "origin" of the ban isn't hard to find.    The origin is still in the OT manual.

• "Therefore, although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood."
• Abraham 1:21-27 (Published in 1835, not canonized until 1880.)
• Moses 7:22 (December 1830)
• Certain other teachings of Joseph Smith likely also contributed to Brigham's assumptions.

Yes, the Church today completely disavows that interpretation, but I don't understand the claim "we do not know the origin". 
The early leaders may have interpreted these things incorrectly and the Church today may have disavowed it, but its clear where they could have gotten it.   Seems pretty easy to find the source.

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't see where he says any of that. Let's not just assert stuff.

You had asked me to have a proxy conversation with Rain in your behalf, either because you thought what he said represented your ideas well or you wanted to brush me off LOL. Have you been following those posts, and if so, how is it going? If you haven't been following, why?

In Packer’s list of “organization, programs, procedures, policies, and principles” the latter seems the best fit for those teachings.  How would you classify them?

I didn’t ask you to have a proxy conversation, I just referred you to an explanation provided by Rain that I felt was accurate.  I have followed the posts but not sure what you’d like me to add to that conversation. 

[kiwi57]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

So does an  official statement from the First Presidency count as doctrine in your view?  Do teachings of apostles count as doctrine?

I provided a source.  Here’s another:  https://thc.utah.edu/lectures-programs/mcmurrin-lecture/PRINCE-MCMURRIN LECTURE-protected.pdf

It’s long but we’re dealing with a complex issue.  If you’d like to understand it, it will take time. 

If there are unambiguous statements by actual Church leaders that explicitly state that homosexual tendencies or desires are themselves sinful, whether acted upon or not, then it shouldn't be necessary to keep pointing to long argumentative tracts.

 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

If there are unambiguous statements by actual Church leaders that explicitly state that homosexual tendencies or desires are themselves sinful, whether acted upon or not, then it shouldn't be necessary to keep pointing to long argumentative tracts.

 

Proof texting quotes gets us nowhere.  I’ve been there, done that.  It’ll just lead to frustration on both sides.  Either the entire history and context is delved into, or you can continue to re-cast statements made by apostles and prophets in the past to fit today’s doctrine. 

If you don’t want study it out, that’s fine.  But I won’t waste my time providing decontextualized snippets that will be reinterpreted per current understanding.  (We already get enough of that with respect to past racism and polygamy.)

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I hear this a lot and I don't fully agree.
I know the Church today disavows the doctrine, but the "origin" of the ban isn't hard to find.    The origin is still in the OT manual.

• "Therefore, although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood."
• Abraham 1:21-27 (Published in 1835, not canonized until 1880.)
• Moses 7:22 (December 1830)
• Certain other teachings of Joseph Smith likely also contributed to Brigham's assumptions.

Yes, the Church today completely disavows that interpretation, but I don't understand the claim "we do not know the origin". 
The early leaders may have interpreted these things incorrectly and the Church today may have disavowed it, but its clear where they could have gotten it.   Seems pretty easy to find the source.

This is an excellent point. Another corollary to it I would add is that there is a big difference between disavowal and claiming that we don't know the origin. It originated with Joseph Smith (even though he wasn't always consistent on this --- his statements supporting the ban, and the PoGP/BoM scriptures are the source). 

The disavowal is more a function of PR and damage control attempt. Talk about splitting hairs over "revelation/just a policy"  with the Proclamation --- viewing modern disavowal via anonymous gospel topic essay as revelation and definitive word is very similar. The biggest disservice of the gospel topic essay on the ban is that it disavows without explaining at all what we are to then make of the PoGP/BoM verses in support of the ban. And, they remain in the canon (as they should). It is whistling past the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

[Jeanne]

On 10/22/2017 at 2:03 PM, Rain said:

 

Let me be clear here. I don't agree with rockpond that the proclamation can or should add LBGT families. If there was a revelation on it I would pray about it and accept whatever the Spirit says, but with my understanding of the gospel I don't think that is going to change. 

That said, rockpond is open to receiving new revelation about it including LBGT families. That may be why he is not specific. Since he doesn't lead the church then he can't get specifics for what revelation like that would look like. So he is open to whatever specifics there might be. I'm assuming that if the prophet announced that he had spent much time in pray and fasting, asking for clear revelation on bringing in LBGT and was told that no, it was not part of the eternal plan that rockpond would be open to searching his heart and praying again about it.

I like this.  Rockpond  is showing great respect for a prophet when conceding to the fact that his own personal perceived revelations and insight with study and prayer...and his very own experiences..does not  let him speak for a prophet of a church.  And yet..this very church says he has a right to said personal revelation and a dictation to follow his convictions and open hope for change. 

 

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

If there are unambiguous statements by actual Church leaders that explicitly state that homosexual tendencies or desires are themselves sinful, whether acted upon or not, then it shouldn't be necessary to keep pointing to long argumentative tracts.

 

In all of this thread..there is hardly a mention that in those "tendencies"  there is also and often a great love. For those partners and families inside those partnerships/marriage..there is love.  It is time that the Church grows with that love...it has always been there..Christ said so.  Love ye..one another..  So many families hetro and otherwise are created with dynamics that we don't understand..but if there is love in any home..where people take care of each other..they should have the same respect and said  redeeming qualities that inhabit a heavenly atmosphere for all eternity.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Proof texting quotes gets us nowhere.  I’ve been there, done that.  It’ll just lead to frustration on both sides.  Either the entire history and context is delved into, or you can continue to re-cast statements made by apostles and prophets in the past to fit today’s doctrine. 

If you don’t want study it out, that’s fine.  But I won’t waste my time providing decontextualized snippets that will be reinterpreted per current understanding.  (We already get enough of that with respect to past racism and polygamy.)

So I take it there are no "unambiguous statements by actual Church leaders that explicitly state that homosexual tendencies or desires are themselves sinful, whether acted upon or not."

It took us a while to get there, but I'll take your equivocation as an admission.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This is an excellent point. Another corollary to it I would add is that there is a big difference between disavowal and claiming that we don't know the origin. It originated with Joseph Smith (even though he wasn't always consistent on this --- his statements supporting the ban, and the PoGP/BoM scriptures are the source). 

The disavowal is more a function of PR and damage control attempt. Talk about splitting hairs over "revelation/just a policy"  with the Proclamation --- viewing modern disavowal via anonymous gospel topic essay as revelation and definitive word is very similar. The biggest disservice of the gospel topic essay on the ban is that it disavows without explaining at all what we are to then make of the PoGP/BoM verses in support of the ban. And, they remain in the canon (as they should). It is whistling past the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Excellent points here, Rongo. 

The racist teachings obviously date back to the oldest of scripture.  The only attempt the essay seems to make regarding the origin of the ban is to pin it on Young’s 1852 address to the legislature.  But that ignores all the racist teachings that still exist in our canon. 

The Bishop that I served with at the time that the essay was released was certain that, like you said, it was just about PR and damage control. 

Regarding the authority of the essay, I believe the thought is that the essays must have gone through FP approval prior to being published.  I thought, back when I was in a Bishopric, that we received a letter that stated something to that effect. I’m released now but, if your aren’t, perhaps you could check your communications archive in LCR. 

[Rain]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

While I am not saying that in my 2^nd paragraph, think it makes sense that we should be able to be specific about anything we know. What I am referring to is only the stage of studying it out in our mind. Like your idea about knowing something by personal revelation, once we know what we’re studying and thinking about with regards to the subject of the last few pages, we should certainly be able to be specific about it and share. Now I understand why someone would not want to share specifics (too sacred, too controversial, too tender, too inconsistent with subtler strategies to influence the direction of the conversation, etc.).

 

So when a conversation revolves around opinions that the LDS doctrines and the family proclamation need to become more inclusive of LGBT families as heirs of exaltation, specifics resulting from personal study and analysis should be explored, considered and shared. As I pointed out earlier, there are ramifications to existing LDS doctrine and policy that underlie the proclamation, such as marriage and sealing, covenant birth and child-rearing in the covenant, and parental presiding vis-à-vis priesthood. These ideas should be specified and shared in such an important conversation. Likewise, if the discussion is about whether more apostolic, canonized revelation is needed to confirm, support or clarify existing doctrine and policy, those specifics should also be shared for further consideration.

 

Thank you. I don't necessarily agree, but I appreciate that you explained what you meant.

One reason I don't necessarily agree is that I have found that sometimes I have been given little bits of things and not the whole picture on some subjects. I wouldn't be comfortable giving specifics without a more full picture. No idea if rockpond feels anything like this. Just rolling around in my mind why I would or wouldn't agree. 

[rockpond]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take it there are no "unambiguous statements by actual Church leaders that explicitly state that homosexual tendencies or desires are themselves sinful, whether acted upon or not."

It took us a while to get there, but I'll take your equivocation as an admission.

 

No such admission.  There are unambiguous statements to support the conclusions I’ve stated above.  But if someone here is not willing to take the time and effort to study them out - I won’t spoon feed because they’ll just be dismissed as “one off” statements that don’t represent the Church.  You and I have gone down that road before.  It’s pointless.  Either one wants to study and understand what apostles and prophets  taught historically on the matter, or not. I can’t convince you or Kiwi with cherry picked statements and I won’t waste my time trying. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I hear this a lot and I don't fully agree.
I know the Church today disavows the doctrine, but the "origin" of the ban isn't hard to find.    The origin is still in the OT manual.

• "Therefore, although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood."
• Abraham 1:21-27 (Published in 1835, not canonized until 1880.)
• Moses 7:22 (December 1830)
• Certain other teachings of Joseph Smith likely also contributed to Brigham's assumptions.

Yes, the Church today completely disavows that interpretation, but I don't understand the claim "we do not know the origin". 
The early leaders may have interpreted these things incorrectly and the Church today may have disavowed it, but its clear where they could have gotten it.   Seems pretty easy to find the source.

I think they mean we don't know for sure the actual "origin of the origin", as opposed to a considered educated assumption of the origin. As in we don't have an apostolic witness of the origin, nor can the apostles with certitude testify of its origin.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No such admission.  There are unambiguous statements to support the conclusions I’ve stated above.  But if someone here is not willing to take the time and effort to study them out - I won’t spoon feed because they’ll just be dismissed as “one off” statements that don’t represent the Church.  You and I have gone down that road before.  It’s pointless.  Either one wants to study and understand what apostles and prophets  taught historically on the matter, or not. I can’t convince you or Kiwi with cherry picked statements and I won’t waste my time trying. 

If they have to be "studied out" or if they have to be parsed or spun to draw out of them  the inference one is looking for,  they are by definition, not unambiguous.

It would be easy enough to state clearly and unequivocally that homosexual feelings alone, whether acted upon or not, are sinful (I just expressed it in only 10 words). But obviously you can't find such a statement by an actual Church leader, or you would have promptly quoted it by now.

Furthermore, if you cannot find such a clear and unambiguous statement,  you ought not be tossing off claims as though you could.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

Thank you. I don't necessarily agree, but I appreciate that you explained what you meant.

One reason I don't necessarily agree is that I have found that sometimes I have been given little bits of things and not the whole picture on some subjects. I wouldn't be comfortable giving specifics without a more full picture. No idea if rockpond feels anything like this. Just rolling around in my mind why I would or wouldn't agree. 

Would you engage in a discussion with an attitude fueled by these bits and pieces and then when asked to share the basis for your position, just perpetuate the attitude, leaving others to wonder where you're coming from?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

In Packer’s list of “organization, programs, procedures, policies, and principles” the latter seems the best fit for those teachings.  How would you classify them?

I didn’t ask you to have a proxy conversation, I just referred you to an explanation provided by Rain that I felt was accurate.  I have followed the posts but not sure what you’d like me to add to that conversation. 

That is the conversation I'd prefer to have if you were to add to it. I'm not interested in quibbling over things Elder Packer did not say just to busy myself.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If they have to be "studied out" or if they have to be parsed or spun to draw out of them  the inference one is looking for,  they are by definition, not unambiguous.

It would be easy enough to state clearly and unequivocally that homosexual feelings alone, whether acted upon or not, are sinful (I just expressed it in only 10 words). But obviously you can't find such a statement by an actual Church leader, or you would have promptly quoted it by now.

Furthermore, if you cannot find such a clear and unambiguous statement,  you ought not be tossing off claims as though you could.

Yes, it should have been easy enough for a prophet or apostle to have made such a statement prior to 20 years ago.  And yet they didn’t.  Interesting isn’t it.  Now, consider why. 

The problem I’ve highlighted is that once you pull the statements out of their fill context they become open to reinterpretation.  And that’s what I’ve seen done here time and time again.  I won’t play that ridiculous game. 

As for the claims I’ve made, please refer back to what I said and not what you and Kiwi have changed my claim to be. 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Would you engage in a discussion with an attitude fueled by these bits and pieces and then when asked to share the basis for your position, just perpetuate the attitude, leaving others to wonder where you're coming from?

 

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is the conversation I'd prefer to have if you were to add to it. I'm not interested in quibbling over things Elder Packer did not say just to busy myself.

You’ve lost me with these two responses.  If you’d like to clarify, I’ll try to answer.