Jump to content

Setting aside the rhetoric that some would consider inflammatory, does this article make any good points?


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, MumblingMormonMetaphysics said:

Except that again you are misreading just what Elder Ballard says. Look at the location of that emdash. Clearly what follows after it is a separate thought. He is not saying that "from the beginning of time there has been no attempt". He is saying that he and Elder Oaks, as two apostles, have known of the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time. He is talking in this instance specifically about the leaders that he and Elder Oaks have known since their callings as apostles. He is making it clear that current Church leaders are not trying to hide anything bad from anybody.

Nicely spotted.

Link to post
On 11/30/2017 at 5:22 PM, Exiled said:

Do motives always matter? If I talk to you about gravity but am a mass murderer, does gravity become false or questionable? It seems clear that E. Ballard's statement about not hiding anything doesn't hold up regardless of who the messenger is that points that out.

Once again: the accusers aren't "messengers." They are accusers.

And Elder Ballard's statement has far more credibility than the tortured arguments of those accusers.

  • Like 2
Link to post
13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Just a simple observation, it is neither anti- or pro-Mormon.  Perhaps we could just stick to discussing facts without your seeming obsession with trying to declare things to be "anti-Mormon" as if that means something.

Oh, you think that your nasty and hostile little jab is sticking to the facts, do you?

Here's a fact for you: the brethren are not undermining themselves. That is being done by others; and they are working very hard at it, too.

Edited by kiwi57
  • Like 2
Link to post
4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Once again: the accusers aren't "messengers." They are accusers.

And Elder Ballard's statement has far more credibility than the tortured arguments of those accusers.

I guess you can remain in denial. It is pretty clear E. Ballard's statement about not hiding anything cannot withstand the light of day.

Link to post
5 hours ago, MumblingMormonMetaphysics said:

Except that again you are misreading just what Elder Ballard says. Look at the location of that emdash. Clearly what follows after it is a separate thought. He is not saying that "from the beginning of time there has been no attempt". He is saying that he and Elder Oaks, as two apostles, have known of the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time. He is talking in this instance specifically about the leaders that he and Elder Oaks have known since their callings as apostles. He is making it clear that current Church leaders are not trying to hide anything bad from anybody.

Welcome to the forum.  I'm not sure what from the beginning of time is supposed to mean, if we take your interpretation.  Are we saying since the earth was organized?  He is referencing the history of the Church, that they know it.  And that they know the integrity of the 1st Presidency and Q12.  This to me clearly says that they don't just know the current 1st Presidency and Q12's level of integrity but knows throughout the history of the Church all of those in those positions level of integrity.  I"d say mine is taking the words he used without adding much interpretation moreso than your reading.  But I grant, as I have, that it's likely E Ballard meant something other than he said, as you propose.  

All the best.

 

Link to post
19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Um, you know, I really don't  think I can improve upon what kiwi57 said.

 

:PYeah...you promormons stick together likes birds to a feather...another non answer from Scott.  I am recognizing that yes, exmormons stick together too...but we are not all anti.

Edited by Jeanne
Link to post
5 hours ago, Exiled said:

I guess you can remain in denial.

"Denial," whatever that is supposed to mean, cannot possibly be worse than unjustified accusations.

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

It is pretty clear E. Ballard's statement about not hiding anything cannot withstand the light of day.

On the contrary, it is increasingly clear that Elder Ballard's statement has to be brazenly misrepresented in order to make it susceptible to attack.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Welcome to the forum.  I'm not sure what from the beginning of time is supposed to mean, if we take your interpretation.  Are we saying since the earth was organized?  He is referencing the history of the Church, that they know it.  And that they know the integrity of the 1st Presidency and Q12.  This to me clearly says that they don't just know the current 1st Presidency and Q12's level of integrity but knows throughout the history of the Church all of those in those positions level of integrity.  I"d say mine is taking the words he used without adding much interpretation moreso than your reading.  But I grant, as I have, that it's likely E Ballard meant something other than he said, as you propose.  

All the best.

 

1. Clearly, whatever "from the beginning of time" actually means, it is non-literal hyperbole. It must be; cannot be anything else.

2. Elder Ballard's use of that phrase, as MMM has demonstrated, relates to what he and Elder Oaks have experienced with the leaders of the Church contemporary to them. It does not relate to the lack of attempts to hide anything.

3. Note that he's speaking to Young Single Adults. The hyperbolic phrase is probably a humorous reference to his own age.

4. The interpretation that is preferred by the attack pack is not only grammatically incorrect, it is the least charitable interpretation possible. It is astonishing, and not a little bit hypocritical, that they should turn around and demand that we must be charitable to them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

1. Clearly, whatever "from the beginning of time" actually means, it is non-literal hyperbole. It must be; cannot be anything else.

That's what I'm saying.

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

2. Elder Ballard's use of that phrase, as MMM has demonstrated, relates to what he and Elder Oaks have experienced with the leaders of the Church contemporary to them. It does not relate to the lack of attempts to hide anything.

I wonder if either of the two knew Joseph Fielding Smith then.  Because that is the issue as Elder Ballard raised it.  

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

3. Note that he's speaking to Young Single Adults. The hyperbolic phrase is probably a humorous reference to his own age.

Shrug...fine.  

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

4. The interpretation that is preferred by the attack pack is not only grammatically incorrect, it is the least charitable interpretation possible. It is astonishing, and not a little bit hypocritical, that they should turn around and demand that we must be charitable to them.

I suppose we can charity out the meaning of the words and pretend they all mean something other than said.  In fact I have no problem if that's what someone wants to do.  But that doesn't mean what was said was not said.  It was said.  We're left with an apostle saying something untrue (whether he realizes it or not).  

as an aside I don't see anything near an attack pack around here.  People are really quite reasonable to the faith perspective.  

 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's what I'm saying.

I wonder if either of the two knew Joseph Fielding Smith then.  Because that is the issue as Elder Ballard raised it.  

Shrug...fine.  

I suppose we can charity out the meaning of the words and pretend they all mean something other than said.

Actually I've got a better idea: how about we stop pretending that they meant something other than they said. Elder Ballard did not say that there has never been an attempt to hide anything "from the beginning of time." The false accusation relies upon that wilful misreading. He said that he's known the current FP and Q12 "from the beginning of time." His statement that there's been no attempt to hide anything is in that context - the tenure of the brethren he knows.

Claiming that Elder Ballard asserted that nobody had ever tried to hide anything at any time in the past is a deliberate and malicious distortion of his words.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  In fact I have no problem if that's what someone wants to do.  But that doesn't mean what was said was not said.  It was said.  We're left with an apostle saying something untrue (whether he realizes it or not).  

as an aside I don't see anything near an attack pack around here.  People are really quite reasonable to the faith perspective.  

I suggest you go back and read the article referenced in the OP. Then take a look at who is so enthusiastic about it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Actually I've got a better idea: how about we stop pretending that they meant something other than they said. Elder Ballard did not say that there has never been an attempt to hide anything "from the beginning of time." The false accusation relies upon that wilful misreading. He said that he's known the current FP and Q12 "from the beginning of time." His statement that there's been no attempt to hide anything is in that context - the tenure of the brethren he knows.

Well you slipped "current" in there and left out that he referenced that he says he knows the integrity of the FP and A12 from the beginning (according to Scott's quotation in the desnews article).  Also according to Scott this came in the context of his example of the 1970 article "The facts are we don’t study; we don’t go back and search what has been said on the subject. For example, Dr. James B. Allen of BYU in 1970 produced an article in the Church magazines explaining all about the different versions of the First Vision"

I don't think trying to re-purpose this as they saying only the current Q12 and FP have integrity.  If so, then of course, he'd be accusing past leaders of not doing it the Lord's way.  

 

2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Claiming that Elder Ballard asserted that nobody had ever tried to hide anything at any time in the past is a deliberate and malicious distortion of his words.

Well, he shouldn't have said what he said then.  Because in truth, that is the straight forward meaning of his words.  No Church leader had ever tried to hide anything.

2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I suggest you go back and read the article referenced in the OP. Then take a look at who is so enthusiastic about it.

Look, I don't imagine you're going to bend.  I don't really see the point of quibbling like this anymore.  It think it obvious you are wrong.  You probably feel the same.  have fun.  

Link to post

I think it's useful to go back to the original quote from time to time in these threads.  Here it is from McKnight/Dodge:

"It’s this idea that the church is hiding something, which we would have to say as two Apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time, there has been no attempt on the part in anyway, that the church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody [sic]."

That quote above is, I believe, a direct transcription.  Scott Lloyd quoted it this way in his article:

 “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”

I assume Scott was trying to fix the rough grammar.  But I am open to correction on this.

  • "from the beginning" -- I interpret this as meaning the beginning of this dispensation (i.e. Joseph Smith).  Scott left out the "of time" when he wrote the quote.  But I believe Ballard said "from the beginning of time".
  • "the Church leaders" -- Since immediately before this statement, Ballard referenced his and Oaks' knowledge of the history of the church, I take his statement to include past leaders as well as current ones.  I think that conclusion is supported by the statement he follows with the being anything other than honest and transparent is not the Lord's way.

If one wants to conclude that by "the Church leaders" Ballard meant only those who are currently alive, than why the reference to a 1970 Improvement Era article in the lead up to his statement?  Or, why not clarify, as Snow did in his statement that while the church wasn't totally open in the past, it is being more open now?

Link to post
45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well you slipped "current" in there and left out that he referenced that he says he knows the integrity of the FP and A12 from the beginning (according to Scott's quotation in the desnews article).

He says he knows them. That means personally. Did he know Joseph Smith? Brigham Young? John Taylor?

"Current" is a reasonable (and not attack-focused) interpolation of his words.

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  Also according to Scott this came in the context of his example of the 1970 article "The facts are we don’t study; we don’t go back and search what has been said on the subject. For example, Dr. James B. Allen of BYU in 1970 produced an article in the Church magazines explaining all about the different versions of the First Vision"

I don't think trying to re-purpose this as they saying only the current Q12 and FP have integrity.  If so, then of course, he'd be accusing past leaders of not doing it the Lord's way.I

I'm not the one "trying to re-purpose" anything. I see you slipped the word "only" in there. That doesn't follow from anything I wrote.

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well, he shouldn't have said what he said then.  Because in truth, that is the straight forward meaning of his words.  No Church leader had ever tried to hide anything.

No. it's not.

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Look, I don't imagine you're going to bend.  I don't really see the point of quibbling like this anymore.  It think it obvious you are wrong.  You probably feel the same.  have fun.  

You too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think it's useful to go back to the original quote from time to time in these threads.  Here it is from McKnight/Dodge:

"It’s this idea that the church is hiding something, which we would have to say as two Apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time, there has been no attempt on the part in anyway, that the church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody [sic]."

That quote above is, I believe, a direct transcription.  Scott Lloyd quoted it this way in his article:

 “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”

I assume Scott was trying to fix the rough grammar.  But I am open to correction on this.

  • "from the beginning" -- I interpret this as meaning the beginning of this dispensation (i.e. Joseph Smith).  Scott left out the "of time" when he wrote the quote.  But I believe Ballard said "from the beginning of time".

(Emphasis added by me.) No doubt it's just a coincidence, but it just so happens that that interpretation is necessary to support your accusation. But as I pointed out above, "from the beginning of time" cannot possibly be literal. It can only be hyperbole. Why, out of all the other possibilities, do you arbitrarily choose "the beginning of this dispensation?" Isn't it because your attack needs that? Nothing else will work if you are to make your accusation stick?

When you stop trying to defame the Lord's anointed servants, then I will listen to your complaints about what I say about you.

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:
  • "the Church leaders" -- Since immediately before this statement, Ballard referenced his and Oaks' knowledge of the history of the church, I take his statement to include past leaders as well as current ones.

(Emphasis added by me.) Yet again, and purely by coincidence, the way you choose to take his statement is absolutely essential to your accusation. (Funny, that.) But that's not what he says. He says he knows two things: (1) the history of the Church, and (2) the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. These are two distinct (although not entirely unrelated) things.

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:
  •   I think that conclusion is supported by the statement he follows with the being anything other than honest and transparent is not the Lord's way.

If one wants to conclude that by "the Church leaders" Ballard meant only those who are currently alive, than why the reference to a 1970 Improvement Era article in the lead up to his statement?  Or, why not clarify, as Snow did in his statement that while the church wasn't totally open in the past, it is being more open now?

Yes, why not keep the brethren constantly on the defensive?

The material point is that the Church is devoting considerable and sustained effort to make more and more of its confidential intellectual property more readily available than it ever was (or ever could have been) in the past. One would expect those concerned about "openness" and suchlike to be celebrating that fact.

But what do we see instead?

Minute parsing (nit-picking) and forced interpretations of off-the-cuff remarks in order to make an apostle an "offender for a word."

Don't you feel even a little bit ashamed?

  • Like 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

(Emphasis added by me.) No doubt it's just a coincidence, but it just so happens that that interpretation is necessary to support your accusation. But as I pointed out above, "from the beginning of time" cannot possibly be literal. It can only be hyperbole. Why, out of all the other possibilities, do you arbitrarily choose "the beginning of this dispensation?" Isn't it because your attack needs that? Nothing else will work if you are to make your accusation stick?

When you stop trying to defame the Lord's anointed servants, then I will listen to your complaints about what I say about you.

(Emphasis added by me.) Yet again, and purely by coincidence, the way you choose to take his statement is absolutely essential to your accusation. (Funny, that.) But that's not what he says. He says he knows two things: (1) the history of the Church, and (2) the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. These are two distinct (although not entirely unrelated) things.

Yes, why not keep the brethren constantly on the defensive?

The material point is that the Church is devoting considerable and sustained effort to make more and more of its confidential intellectual property more readily available than it ever was (or ever could have been) in the past. One would expect those concerned about "openness" and suchlike to be celebrating that fact.

But what do we see instead?

Minute parsing (nit-picking) and forced interpretations of off-the-cuff remarks in order to make an apostle an "offender for a word."

Don't you feel even a little bit ashamed?

Ashamed of seeking to correct an error... an error that continues to hurt members and familial relationships within the church?  No, not ashamed.  If we don't believe in prophetic infallibility, than the corollary of that means that ought not keep silent when mistakes are made.

'I do and have celebrated the increased openness we're seeing in the church.  As I've said on this thread, I look forward to its continuance.  I think it will be great for the church.

Regarding the "from the beginning of time" statement... if you consider that to be hyperbole than what time period or group of leaders do you believe Ballard was speaking of when he stated that there has been no attempt to hide anything?

Link to post

I am not understanding why it is so difficult for leaders of the LDS church to admit, apologize...or clarify their mistakes..it would be so easy and set a great example to church members on how to correct their own mistakes ..it would be huge to see an apostle represent a humanity that makes errors in life.  Clarification on any point would leave no one to blame.

Edited by Jeanne
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I am not understanding why it is so difficult for leaders of the LDS church to admit, apologize...or clarify their mistakes..it would be so easy and set a great example to church members on how to correct their own mistakes ..it would be huge to see an apostle represent a humanity that makes errors in life.  Clarification on any point would leave no one to blame.

I can't speak for them but historically critics take everything out of context and then treat it hyperbolically. While I don't think Ballard did anything nearly as bad as some are claiming I think clarifying this point would be both wise and helpful.

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I can't speak for them but historically critics take everything out of context and then treat it hyperbolically. While I don't think Ballard did anything nearly as bad as some are claiming I think clarifying this point would be both wise and helpful.

You accuse critics of taking everything out of context and it’s them who treat things hyperbolically? :)

But I’m glad we agree that a clarification of his point would be wise and helpful (assuming I understood you correctly).

I see a lot of pain and damage to relationships among church members in part because the church has taught a narrative that isn’t entirely accurate and true.  While the church has made some progress in correcting those errors, statements like Ballard’s, that could otherwise be overlooked, become problematic because they tend to push (or give others the rational to push) all blame back on the struggling or doubting member.  This is why his statement was so upsetting to me. 

Link to post
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

You accuse critics of taking everything out of context and it’s them who treat things hyperbolically? :)

Quaere: why should you feel defensive when someone says something critical of the critics? Surely that can't include you, right?

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

But I’m glad we agree that a clarification of his point would be wise and helpful (assuming I understood you correctly).

I see a lot of pain and damage to relationships among church members in part because the church has taught a narrative that isn’t entirely accurate and true.  While the church has made some progress in correcting those errors, statements like Ballard’s, that could otherwise be overlooked, become problematic because they tend to push (or give others the rational to push) all blame back on the struggling or doubting member.  This is why his statement was so upsetting to me. 

Ah, so you're weaponising your feelings. Got it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Quaere: why should you feel defensive when someone says something critical of the critics? Surely that can't include you, right?

Ah, so you're weaponising your feelings. Got it.

Correct, I’m not a critic.  But I did want to point out the irony in the statement. 

Please re-read my comments... they weren’t even about my feelings.  

Link to post
14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I can't speak for them but historically critics take everything out of context and then treat it hyperbolically. While I don't think Ballard did anything nearly as bad as some are claiming I think clarifying this point would be both wise and helpful.

I am glad that we agree that clarification would really help.  It is and should be a part of their service and obligation to church members...and all of us horrible critics..:P

Link to post
15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I can't speak for them but historically critics take everything out of context and then treat it hyperbolically. While I don't think Ballard did anything nearly as bad as some are claiming I think clarifying this point would be both wise and helpful.

They take everything out of context?  How do you define "context"?  If one disagrees with what the church narrative currently is, or if one points out an obvious mistake by some church leader, then is that person automatically taking it out of context?  Why do you think the church did the essays?  Do you think that is was because the critics were always taking things out of "context"?

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Fair Dinkum
      While I'll assume no one in this board is unfamiliar with this subject, I'll still offer a short synopsis just in case. Back Story:  In 1985 the family of B.H. Roberts allowed a collection of his personal papers, still in the private hands of family members, to be published into book form.  The collection was published as "Studies of The Book of Mormon"
      In his papers were discovered notes of a special meeting that was held in early 1922 involving all member's of the First Presidency, The Quorum of the Twelve as well as the 7 Presidents of the Seventy, of which Robert's was a member.  Robert's had been given the assignment by Heber J. Grant to answer questions that had been sent in a letter to the church from a member seeking answers. 
      The questions were quite straight forward:
      when the Jews landed in the New World (600 B.C.) is not enough time to explain the diversity of native Indian languages. Horses were introduced to the Americas by the Spaniards, thus their appearance in the Book of Mormon is an anachronisms. The use of steel in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism. The use of scimitars (an arabian sword) in an anachronism. The use of silk was unknown to the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_of_the_Book_of_Mormon
      Roberts concerns went unanswered by church authorities which caused him to try and resolve the difficulties himself.  The book represents his attempt to resolve those questions, he was unsuccessful in doing so. 
      Now a new master thesis has been written exploring secret meetings that took place following Robert's failed attempt to find satisfaction from his fellow church authorities.  Robert's formed this band of LDS intelligentsia in a further attempt to resolve his concerns and find answers to Book of Mormon problems.  While I've only just started to read it, this thesis is a fascinating behind the scenes look into the pre-correlation church.
      https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/6712
      Despite his failures to resolve his concerns, we owe much to Roberts attempt, for it was from many of these questions that much of today's apologetic theories of a limited footprint, duel Cumorah's and acknowledgement of a pre-populated Asian immigrant America, to name just a few, have emerged.  Since the emergence of the internet, modern day apologetics has completely re-framed how the Book of Mormon is viewed from how it was interpreted in 1922. The problem is that much of the church still views the book in much the same way as it was seen in 1922.
      Mormon historians have debated whether the manuscript/book reflects Roberts's doubts or was a case of his playing a devils advocate. One interesting fact remains, per his instructions, his headstone has a Christian Cross on it, which was even unusual for that time and even more so for a former General Authority of the Church.
       
    • By blueglass
      Here is the 2019 end of year seminary assessment my kids received yesterday. Would love to hear your thoughts on the questions, the probable answers, and the doctrine taught.  Don't forget the last 4 questions pertaining to the Explain Doctrine section.  
      https://ibb.co/Dfz4JNr
      Read instructions before you start the test:
      Exam code: 8
      If you have difficulty taking the learning assessment in the traditional way, please talk with your teacher to figure out the best way to help you succeed.
      Use a no. 2 or HB pencil. Indicate your response by completely filling in the bubble on your answer sheet.
      Section name: Multiple Choice
        1.  Who will receive a place in a kingdom of glory? (1 mark)
      a) Every individual born into mortality
      b) All of God's children except the sons of perdition
      c) Only individuals who are worthy of exaltation
        2. Which of the following is a specific responsibility mentioned in the oath and covenant of the priesthood? (1 mar)
      a) To magnify their callings
      b) To pay a generous fast offering
      c) To not be idle
        3. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, in the Resurrection all individuals will receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) at least a terrestrial glory
      b) celestial glory
      c) glory according to the law they obeyed
        4. Which of the following blessings does God offer to those who keep the Word of Wisdom? (1 mark)
      a) They will not be burned at the Second Coming.
      b) Their bodies will be protected from all illness.
      c) They will receive wisdom and great treasures of knowledge.
        5. To be endowed in the temple means to receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) a guarantee of eternal life
      b) spiritual power and knowledge
      c) unique physical gifts from the Lord
        6. What does the existence of the precious truths in the Pearl of Great Pric teach us about the Prophet Joseph Smith? (1 mark)
      a) He no longer needed the power of God to help him translate.
      b) He was a prophet, seer, and revelator.
      c) He is the only prophet of this dispensation that can receive new scripture.
        7. As watchmen on the tower, modern prophets have a responsibility to ____ (1 mark)
      a) warn us of coming dangers
      b) stop Satan from tempting members of the Church
      c) change truth to fit modern times
        8. What is a bishop's or branch president's main responsibility when a teenager confesses sin to him? (1 mark)
      a) To prevent the person from being part of the Church
      b) To help the person receive forgiveness of the sins and regain peace of mind
      c) To inflict severe consequences and punishments from sinning
        9. Who visited the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple to restore priesthood keys? (1 mark)
      a) Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Malachi
      b) Moses, Elias, and Elijah
      c) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
        10. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, what are tithing funds used for? (1 mark)
      a) They are the main fund the Church uses to support the poor and the needy.
      b) They are used to build temples and to accomplish the work of the Lord.
      c) They are used to pay ward and branch members for serving in the Church.
        11. While the Prophet Joseph Smith was falsely imprisoned in Liberty Jail, the Lord taught him that adversity and affliction
      (1 mark)
      a) will not occur if we trust in God
      b) are always a consequence of our poor choices
      c) can give us experience and be for our good
        12. Which of the following is a true statement about Relief Society? (1 mark)
      a) It was divinely organized to assist in the work of salvation.
      b) It was established during the trek west to help Saints who were suffering.
      c) It did not exist during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
        13. A man and a woman will receive eternal life and glory if _____ (1 mark)
      a) they love each other more than they love themselves
      b) they keep the new and everlasting covenant of marriage they made in the temple
      c) they are married in the temple
        14. Why do our ancestors who die without having a knowledge of the gospel need us to perform ordinances for them in the temple?
      a) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot progress toward eternal life. (1 mark)
      b) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot be saved in any kingdom of glory.
      c} Without these ordinances, our ancestors will not be resurrected.
        15. Marriage between one man and one woman is the Lord's standing law. Wen is the only time plural marriage is justified?
      a) Wen there are more women than men in the Church (1 mark)
      b) Whenever local laws and traditions allow members to practice it without breaking the law
      c) When the Lord authorizes it through the priesthood keys given to the President of the Church
        16. When the President of the Church dies, which quorum becomes the presiding quorum of the Church? (1 mark)
      a) The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
      b) The Quorum of the First Presidency
      c) The Presiding Bishopric
        17. Which of the following shows the correct chronological order (first to last) of places the Saints were told to gather to? (1 mark}
      a) A stake in their homeland; Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah
      b) Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
      c) Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Nauvoo, Illinois; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
        18. After the Savior visited the spirit world, what did righteous spirits there begin to do?
      a} They were all resurrected and began entering the highest kingdom of glory.
      b) They began performing ordinances for those who had not received them.
      c) They began teaching the gospel to those in spirit prison.
      (1 mark)
        19. According to Official Declaration 2, the Lord revealed that all worthy male Church members may ___ _ (1 mark)
      a) receive the ordinance of baptism
      b) serve a mission at age 18
      c) receive the priesthood and enjoy temple blessings
        20. What principle is emphasized in Doctrine and Covenants 121:36, 41-2? (1 mark)
      a) Priesthood holders can draw upon the powers of heaven only if they live righteously.
      b) lf we actively seek to learn through study and faith, our faith in Jesus Christ will increase.
      c) If we obey the Lord, He will always keep His promises to bless us.
        21. Which of the following accurately describes Heavenly Father? (1 mark)
      a) He is without feelings or emotions.
      b) He is a personage of Spirit and can dwell in us.
      c) He has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's.
        22. Which of the following is a requirement for receiving exaltation in the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) Bearing testimony of the Savior is all that is needed.
      b) Receiving a patriarchal blessing
      c) Receiving and being valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ
        23. Of the following groups, who will inherit the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) All children who die before they reach the age of accountability
      b) All members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
      c) All individuals who have been baptized
        24. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "God doesn't care how marriage is defined"? (1 mark)
      a) Ever individual born into morality is a child of God, and God loves each of us.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God changes truth to meet the circumstances and needs of His children.
        25. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "It isn't as important for couples to have children today as it used to
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) God's commandment fr husbands and wives to have children remains in force today.
        26. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As long as two individuals love each other, physical intimacy is
      acceptable"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
        27. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As governments continue to redefine marriage, God's definition of
      marriage will change to reflect the values of modern society"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) Changes in the civil law do not change the moral law that God has established.
        28. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "The only purpose of marriage is for adults to find fulfillment and
      happiness"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      Section name: Explain Doctrine _
      Instructions: Write your answer on a piece of paper. Compare your response with the correct answer received from your teacher. After self-grading the explain-doctrine question, bubble in your answer sheet.
      Self-grade your answer for each question:
      a. Yes, I explained this in my response.
      b. No, I left this out of my response.
        29. What is an example of a truth that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the truth you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        30. What is an example of an ordinance that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the ordinance you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        31. What is an example of priesthood authority that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why this authority of the priesthood can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        32. Share your personal thoughts on the importance of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (1 mark)
    • By blueglass
      Really impressed with Kate Holbrook's interview with Terryl Givens.  She's thoughtful, candid, and inspiring as she speaks about her persistence to get a PhD and work full time for the church as a manger of church history.  She's working on a project with Lisa Tate on the history of the young women's organization.  
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2G7k1ggz7k&feature=em-uploademail
      One thing I caught that I hadn't heard before was when Terryl asks her about whether she felt a sense of loss and a sense of jubilation when studying the history of the RS.  Joseph envisioned a more collaborative relationship with the male priesthood, more autonomy, abundance of spiritual gifts, authority to administer ordinances including healing by the laying of hands.  Kate responds that she understands the hyperfocus on this time period, but she feels there is a lost opportunity in recognizing the accomplishments of the women of the 20th century - she then backtracks a bit and says:
      "I don't want to say that their isn't a difference, between - a time when a woman was able to say I have this terrific idea she's say the General RS president and she goes and talks to the president of the church about it.  That is certainly different than now, when she goes and talks to someone in the presiding bishopric, and it has to go through several levels to even get to the president.  There is a loss, and there is a difference."
      I had no idea that the General RS president did not have direct access to the quorum of the 12, and first presidency?  Why in 3 heavens does the general RS president still have such an auxiliary level of access to the presiding apostolic quorum, access to financial influence through Pres Bishopric perhaps, but no real budget to work with?  No seat on the correlation committee?  
      Kate has a great story about how Ardeth Greene Kapp (General YW president 84-92') while receiving a downpour of revelation would use innovative, clever ways and technology to push the ideas upward through the hierarchy.  
    • By FearlessFixxer
      Greetings.

      I was told by a friend that I needed to check this site out and I am super impressed!  I love the commentary, both for and against, the various leaks we have have over the last year.
       
      This is by far the best forum currently discussing the leaks.
       
      Anyway, I thought I would offer myself up to you all and do an AMA (Ask Me Anything).
       
      No questions are off the table, but I reserve the right to say no comment 
       
      If you need proof that this is really me you can PM me at https://www.facebook.com/FearlessFixxer
       
      Cheers
       
      Moderator advice: Welcome to the board, feel free to join in but we do not allow personal ads. 
    • By rockpond
      For anyone out there who has been dying to know how much a temple employee makes <crickets>, some 2006 data is now available!
      MormonLeaks has also created a page where they are compiling all leaks that have to do with church salaries, it's here:
      https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=Mormon_Church_Salaries
      If you were looking to become employed with the church, it appears that (as of 2006) the top salaries there maxed out around $130k.  Likely a bit higher now.
×
×
  • Create New...