"What does it mean that this is the true Church?"

[MiserereNobis]

27 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Again, whether this be a general apostasy or just scattered ones here and there is a matter of interpretation, hence the need for prophets called of God that can interpret the meaning that God had when He had those words written since " no bprophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)

Catholics agree, though we wouldn't use the word prophet, but instead the magisterium, the bishops in union with the pope. In other words, we both agree that understanding of scripture and doctrine requires authority and the power of the Holy Ghost.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

My understanding is that the LDS church teaches that there will never be another apostasy, that God will protect the church now. I've even heard people say that if the president tried to lead the church astray then God would take his life. Is this true (both that there will never be another apostasy and that the president would die if he tried something wrong)?

Well, that is because we believe these are the end times and the Restoration is a necessary step in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus. That is implicit in LDS doctrines and revelations from the very beginning when Joseph Smith was ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood by John the Baptist.

I can’t imagine taking the life of an errant prophet. There are other safeguards in place should a Church president try to lead it into apostacy. I’ve noted the current calls for your leader to step down.

Quote

 

If so, why would God protect the church now and not back when Jesus established it? What's different now? People have always been evil, wicked, teaching false doctrine, following false doctrine, etc. I don't believe that people at the time of Jesus were any more or less wicked. In fact, I believe that the apostles whom Jesus called (excepting Judas, of course) were among the best Christians to have ever lived, dedicating their very lives to following the great commission to spread the gospel and establish churches.

No argument about the apostles. The issue is something we LDS and Catholics have in common. I understand Catholics believe Peter and his successor Popes hold the keys of the Priesthood. We believe the keys were lost with the death of the last apostles who were the only ones authorized by God to hold them and pass them on to others. They were restored by Peter, James, and John to Joseph Smith.

Quote

I don't read the quote as evidence that there would be a complete apostasy. Paul is warning the Church that there will be those who teach false doctrine. This is nothing new or surprising or apocalyptic. I imagine if I searched general conference addresses I could probably find LDS leaders giving the same warning -- be alert and don't allow false doctrine to lead you or those over whom you have stewardship astray.

I see how you can disagree with the meaning. There are other New Testament and Book of Mormon prophesies about the Apostacy. We probably wouldn’t agree on their interpretation either, and you don’t accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Exiled]

It always seemed contradictory to me that the "one true church" would be hidden among the thousands of other churches.  Why wouldn't God simply use the already powerful Catholic church as His vehicle to restore what was supposedly lost?  Surely, with God nothing is impossible and He could have easily inspired corrective action with one or more Popes and/or Cardinals along the way.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Exiled

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The point is that Jesus says that to assert that anything else is doctrine is to build on sand.  Does mainstream LDS encourage me to dismiss what Jesus says, should I embrace it? 

Thomas Kuhn observes that "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation."  So if I expect that LDS are a covenant community, rather than, say,  a long, static list of Things to Think About Everything That Never Will or Should Change, then my testimony will be much more tolerant and robust, and far less brittle and crisis prone.  It's as though I built my testimony on a rock, rather than a beach.

My wife was calling me to go to church, so I didn't quite finish the thoughts I was posting.  However, I have been posting the same kinds of things for decades. I was going to add a link to the essay with my more formal and detailed discussion of what "true and living" is doing in D&C 1.

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/#fn52-4012

The information is on pages 132-139.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks for this. I like when doctrine is Christ-centered and simple.

Could it be acknowledged, then, that the concept of the eternal roles of gender is not Christ’s doctrine (for example) because the concept does not relate to those four pillars of the Gospel?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

For me, there is no true church.  Whatever changes you life for the better and moves you to more loving, compassionate living is good for you  This kind of thing can come from all over and what ever holes you have in your life can be filled with those things you find that make you a whole person.  Learning is everything.  To me, it is what God intended..to learn, to grow and take and give on those things that are relevant to happy and good lives.  This all requires decisions in free agency...and yes, there are consequences to wrong decisions...but they have everything to do with your growth..physical, spiritual and joyful change.  There is no one true church with authority to rule out you own conscience.  No priesthood in the world can replace or love, carin and gratitude to the nature of God's laws..He will do what He does...but how we conform to HIs understanding depends on us...not on church.

With respect, how do we know that God has intended what you describe? 

[Bernard Gui]

47 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Catholics agree, though we wouldn't use the word prophet, but instead the magisterium, the bishops in union with the pope. In other words, we both agree that understanding of scripture and doctrine requires authority and the power of the Holy Ghost.

Could you point to a scripture I could look at that talks about the concept of magisterium? 

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Quote

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place.

although there are some, maybe even a lot of members who do not believe that to be true.

The context of this revelation I think is very important to understanding it, and interpreting it correctly.

I’m one of those members who does not believe that this statement guaranteed that a general apostasy by leadership is impossible.  Logicians would have trouble with the statement, first of all. Second, as I mentioned the context of the abandonment of polygamy cannot be understated, and I believe President Woodruff was reassuring the Saints that they could still be exhalted despite not living “the principle.”

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It always seemed contradictory to me that the "one true church" would be hidden among the thousands of other churches.  Why wouldn't God simply use the already powerful Catholic church as His vehicle to restore what was supposedly lost?  Surely, with God nothing is impossible and He could have easily inspired corrective action with one or more Popes and/or Cardinals along the way.

The Jews are also hidden among thousands of churches, but they are God's chosen people. They have a critical role to play in the end times.

[Kevin Christensen]

25 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Thanks for this. I like when doctrine is Christ-centered and simple.

Could it be acknowledged, then, that the concept of the eternal roles of gender is not Christ’s doctrine (for example) because the concept does not relate to those four pillars of the Gospel?

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ directly implies I ought to take him very seriously when he says, "If ye love me, keep my commandments," rather than suppose it might be alright to imagine that what he really meant to say was, "Because I love you, I will let you make your own commandments, based on what you suppose it right for you.  And I will see to it that nothing bad or unpleasant ever happens as a result of whatever choices you make."

And Repentance is one of those gospel pillars, a bedrock doctrine, the literal meaning of which is turning our minds.  Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ means letting him set the boundaries, and that we are to make a real effort to change ourselves to conform to his will, rather than to find excuses to ignore his will in favor of our own, trying to get God to repent so we don't have to make the sacrifice.

The concept of gender is a hot topic because that is an issue where many people have more faith in their own commandments, and where many quite vocally want Jesus to do the repenting.

I prefer to take an altogether different angle on the question.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

Toward the end of that essay, I quote Rene Girard:

Quote

The most powerful anti-Christian movement is the one that takes over and ‘radicalizes’ the concern for victims in order to paganize it…they reproach Christianity for not defending victims with enough ardor. In Christian history, they see nothing but acts of oppression, inquisitions…

Neo-paganism would like to turn the Ten Commandments and all of Judeo-Christian morality into some alleged intolerable violence, and indeed, its primary objective is their complete abolition. Faithful observance of the moral law is perceived as complicity with forces of persecution that are essentially religions…Neo-paganism locates happiness in the unlimited satisfaction of desires, which means the suppression of all prohibitions.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[MiserereNobis]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Could you point to a scripture I could look at that talks about the concept of magisterium? 

The same scriptures you would use in the Bible to justify priesthood leadership and organizational structure.

My point was that it was a semantical difference (magisterium and prophet/quorum of apostles). We both claim a leadership authorized by God to protect, transmit, clarify, and interpret doctrine and scripture. 

[SouthernMo]

17 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ directly implies I ought to take him very seriously when he says, "If ye love me, keep my commandments," rather than suppose it might be alright to imagine that what he really meant to say was, "Because I love you, I will let you make your own commandments, based on what you suppose it right for you.  And I will see to it that nothing bad or unpleasant ever happens as a result of whatever choices you make."

 

This is a logical struggle for me.

The way I understand your position is that commandments are a necessary subset of faith, and therefore are part of LDS doctrine.  ‘Commandments’ is a pretty broad topic, as I’m sure you know better than I do.

What that position does (in my understanding) is significantly broadens your earlier statement that the four pillars of faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost are the doctrine, and anything else puts us on sandy foundations.  Suddenly, anything that at one point or another taught as a commandment is part of doctrine.  Conflicts and confusion ensue.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

There are other safeguards in place should a Church president try to lead it into apostacy.

What are they? Can the other apostles remove the president?

Quote

I’ve noted the current calls for your leader to step down.

Yes. It is interesting to see the effects that Pope Benedicts resignation/retirement might have on the papacy from this point on. Benedict wasn't the first pope to resign, but it had been 700 years or so since the last time.

[Kevin Christensen]

23 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is a logical struggle for me.

The way I understand your position is that commandments are a necessary subset of faith, and therefore are part of LDS doctrine.  ‘Commandments’ is a pretty broad topic, as I’m sure you know better than I do.

What that position does (in my understanding) is significantly broadens your earlier statement that the four pillars of faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost are the doctrine, and anything else puts us on sandy foundations.  Suddenly, anything that at one point or another taught as a commandment is part of doctrine.  Conflicts and confusion ensue.

I'm just pointing out that if "faith in Christ" has any binding meaning, then that should show up somewhere in how I value what Jesus says. I don't think that "anything that at one point or another... is part of doctrine."  That is the whole point of Jesus making a notably restrictive definition is to try to get us to not treat everything that at one point or another is doctrine.  It isn't.  But Faith in Christ should mean something, rather than whatever is convenient or easy or manageable at the moment.  If my faith is in Jesus Christ, rather than, say, My Personal Self Interest, or even My Personal Interests, that should take some form in how I response to what he says, especially when what he says involves a call to action and response on my part.   And what he wants, in 3 Nephi starts with the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, which means in practice, a willingness to offer up what I think and what I desire in order to get closer to what is real.  (When I studied over 70 arguments given in the scriptures by people who were rejecting Jesus or other prophets, I eventually realized that they all boiled down to people saying, "It's not what I think" ( for example, in John 6, "this is a hard saying, who can hear it?") or, "It's not what I want, or at least, what I want most" as in the rich young man who went away.

According to Alma 32, it may just involve a desire to believe, and a subsequent experiment on even "a portion of my words" where Alma lets his listeners choose the portion for the first experiments.  It's not about static absolutes, but about constraining principles, and growth.  "and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand."  

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited September 2, 2018 by Kevin Christensen

[SouthernMo]

12 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I'm just pointing out that if "faith in Christ" has any binding meaning, then that should show up somewhere in how I value what Jesus says. I don't think that "anything that at one point or another... is part of doctrine."  That is the whole point of Jesus making a notably restrictive definition is to try to get us to not treat everything that at one point or another is doctrine.  It isn't.  But Faith in Christ should mean something, rather than whatever is convenient or easy or manageable at the moment.  If my faith is in Jesus Christ, rather than, say, My Personal Self Interest, or even My Personal Interests, that should take some form in how I response to what he says, especially when what he says involves a call to action and response on my part.   And what he wants, in 3 Nephi starts with the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, which means in practice, a willingness to offer up what I think and what I desire in order to get closer to what is real.  (When I studied over 70 arguments given in the scriptures by people who were rejecting Jesus or other prophets, I eventually realized that they all boiled down to people saying, "It's not what I think" ( for example, in John 6, "this is a hard saying, who can hear it?") or, "It's not what I want, or at least, what I want most" as in the rich young man who went away.

According to Alma 32, it may just involve a desire to believe, and a subsequent experiment on even "a portion of my words" where Alma lets his listeners choose the portion for the first experiments.  It's not about static absolutes, but about constraining principles, and growth.  "and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand."  

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

So in this context, we need to be diligent in determining what commandments come from Christ, and which do not? Humility is key to seeing beyond our own perspectives and desires?

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I know your response was not to me, but this is one reason why I believe the Church is not perfect. If it was perfect, it would never go astray, yet we believe men did go astray and apostatize. I think they would do it again if the Lord does not step in. There is no reason to feel insulted. Men just follow imperfectly.

In Joseph Smith's first vision the Lord called the creeds of men abominable. I don't take that as a statement that creeds are always abominable, but that the creeds which had come into being since He founded the Church are an abomination. What if He wasn't begotten before all aeon? Should He take exception to that creedal claim? The Nicene Creed is regularly used to allege that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS are not Christian. Further, in its original forms, it was anathema to say anything in opposition to this creed essentially saying I am an apostate if I don't say that Yeshua was begotten before aeon. It became the law to recite this creed in all churches of the Roman empire, and if you did not, you were subject to excommunication. So, should I like this creed? I find it errant and presumptuous. It is not really for me to hate though. It is not about me, but about my Savior. It is not for the sake of being a creed that I dislike them - it is for their errors, and use to claim that I am not Christian if I will not recite them.

Protestants have done some horrible things. Mormons have done some horrible things. None of us have claims to complete purity. I applaud the good that Catholics do, and have found some to be "more Christian" than Protestants I have known. However, being good does not make all teachings correct or mean that we do everything as our Savior would have us do.

To the extent that they follow scripture, they do. However, I have no great love for Protestant theology. It is full of errors. There is no central authorized authority in Protestantism to hold things together. Hence, it has splintered into thousands of pieces with myriads of different and conflicting teachings. However, it was born out of a realization that God's authority had left the earth. 

 

23 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I know your response was not to me, but this is one reason why I believe the Church is not perfect. If it was perfect, it would never go astray, yet we believe men did go astray and apostatize. I think they would do it again if the Lord does not step in. There is no reason to feel insulted. Men just follow imperfectly.

In Joseph Smith's first vision the Lord called the creeds of men abominable. I don't take that as a statement that creeds are always abominable, but that the creeds which had come into being since He founded the Church are an abomination. What if He wasn't begotten before all aeon? Should He take exception to that creedal claim? The Nicene Creed is regularly used to allege that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS are not Christian. Further, in its original forms, it was anathema to say anything in opposition to this creed essentially saying I am an apostate if I don't say that Yeshua was begotten before aeon. It became the law to recite this creed in all churches of the Roman empire, and if you did not, you were subject to excommunication. So, should I like this creed? I find it errant and presumptuous. It is not really for me to hate though. It is not about me, but about my Savior. It is not for the sake of being a creed that I dislike them - it is for their errors, and use to claim that I am not Christian if I will not recite them.

Protestants have done some horrible things. Mormons have done some horrible things. None of us have claims to complete purity. I applaud the good that Catholics do, and have found some to be "more Christian" than Protestants I have known. However, being good does not make all teachings correct or mean that we do everything as our Savior would have us do.

To the extent that they follow scripture, they do. However, I have no great love for Protestant theology. It is full of errors. There is no central authorized authority in Protestantism to hold things together. Hence, it has splintered into thousands of pieces with myriads of different and conflicting teachings. However, it was born out of a realization that God's authority had left the earth. 

Protestant theology is full of errors? Now you have my attention . . . Essential Protestant theology is not a big body of beliefs; maybe around 10 or so. Some would hold as few as 5 The LDS has a central authorized authority and  yet individual Mormons believe wildly divergent things. I for one, don't hold that against them because first and foremost belief is a person individual thing. So now we have established that Protestant theology is full of errors and that individual Mormons believe wildly divergent things.  See the writings of Patrick Mason versus those of David V. Mason versus those of that famed LDS scholar Perry Mason. Oh, and you have established again that Protestants deny Mormons Christianity because Mormons don't believe in creeds. I would love to see some references from acknowledged Protestant theologians or scholars to that effect. If that were the case creedal Protestants would have to deny Christianity to 70% of fellow Protestants who are not creedal. That simply doesn't make sense.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I like this.  I think this dovetails with the first three questions of the Temple Recommend interview (the ones dealing with faith and belief, as the rest deal with conduct) :

• 1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
• 2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
• 3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

These cover a lot of ground, as at least an element of all three of these requires having "faith" in the prophetic callings of those through whom God has communicated.  I emphasize "prophetic calling" of the Lord's servants.  Not their infallibility.  We can and should accept and have faith in prophets not because they are perfect and incapable of error, but because they are the conduits of revealed truths and sound counsel, and because they are the custodians of the priesthood authority by which saving ordinances are administered.

I am reminded here of Mormon 9:31:

This is very wise.  We needn't condemn the flawed men and women who have gone before.  They're already dead, and judgment is now up to God (as it has ever been).

But we also needn't ignore the flaws of our predecessors.  We can, and must, learn from them, that we may "be more wise they [they] have been."

I think this applies to the leaders of the Church.  And our fellow members.  And to the Church as a whole.  We are all imperfect beings.  And yet Christ loves His Church.  "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."  (Ephesians 5:25).

So we need to forgive.  "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  (D&C 64:10).  And we need to remember that we will be judged by our own yardstick.

Hmm.  Does this mean I need to forgive people like Sam Young and Jeremy Runnells?  And to abstain from unrighteous judgment against them?

Well, yes.  Yes it does.

Thanks,

-Smac

Very thought provoking and well-stated comments, Smac.

Of course, I have a long way to go before I can count myself wiser than the great prophets in the Book of Mormon and in the latter days, flawed though they may have been. I suppose that self-recognition is what keeps me from nitpicking and carping about them.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Protestant theology is full of errors? Now you have my attention

Well, as a Catholic, I'd have to say that yes, protestant theology is full of errors  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, that is because we believe these are the end times and the Restoration is a necessary step in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus. That is implicit in LDS doctrines and revelations from the very beginning when Joseph Smith was ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood by John the Baptist.

I can’t imagine taking the life of an errant prophet. There are other safeguards in place should a Church president try to lead it into apostacy. I’ve noted the current calls for your leader to step down.

No argument about the apostles. The issue is something we LDS and Catholics have in common. I understand Catholics believe Peter and his successor Popes hold the keys of the Priesthood. We believe the keys were lost with the death of the last apostles who were the only ones authorized by God to hold them and pass them on to others. They were restored by Peter, James, and John to Joseph Smith.

I see how you can disagree with the meaning. There are other New Testament and Book of Mormon prophesies about the Apostacy. We probably wouldn’t agree on their interpretation either, and you don’t accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. 

In addition to what you say here, Bernard, I am reassured by the declaration of the resurrected John the Baptist to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery that priesthood keys and authority would never again be taken from the earth "before the sons of Levi do offer again and offering to the Lord in righteousness." In other words, before the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

The context of this revelation I think is very important to understanding it, and interpreting it correctly.

I’m one of those members who does not believe that this statement guaranteed that a general apostasy by leadership is impossible.  Logicians would have trouble with the statement, first of all. Second, as I mentioned the context of the abandonment of polygamy cannot be understated, and I believe President Woodruff was reassuring the Saints that they could still be exhalted despite not living “the principle.”

So you are not a fully believing member, then.

 

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you are not a fully believing member, then.

 

If the statement mentioned from President Woodruff must be believed to mean that general apostasy is impossible for be to be a fully believing member, then no, I am not a fully believing member.

I have yet to see a list of things one must believe to be a fully believing member.

If you have a list, please share.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

This is a logical struggle for me.

The way I understand your position is that commandments are a necessary subset of faith, and therefore are part of LDS doctrine.  ‘Commandments’ is a pretty broad topic, as I’m sure you know better than I do.

What that position does (in my understanding) is significantly broadens your earlier statement that the four pillars of faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost are the doctrine, and anything else puts us on sandy foundations.  Suddenly, anything that at one point or another taught as a commandment is part of doctrine.  Conflicts and confusion ensue.

There is an oft-overlooked fifth pillar (heed His servants, see 3 Nephi 12:1, which continues after being baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost).

As shown in Chapter 27:20-23, these servants administer, in addition to the gospel message and the doctrines, “the things that ye must do in my church.” Some of these things can be recognized by those who are "sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost," especially those things that are forbidden to be written.

Edited September 2, 2018 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If the statement mentioned from President Woodruff must be believed to mean that general apostasy is impossible for be to be a fully believing member, then no, I am not a fully believing member.

I have yet to see a list of things one must believe to be a fully believing member.

If you have a list, please share.

I'm not going to provide such a list. For now, I'll just leave it at what I mentioned above, John the Baptist's declaration that priesthood keys and authority would never again be taken from the earth.

 

[SouthernMo]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not going to provide such a list. For now, I'll just leave it at what I mentioned above, John the Baptist's declaration that priesthood keys and authority would never again be taken from the earth.

 

Remember on a previous thread where you pointed out that the Brigham Young quote on offense was incomplete?

I’d advice you to look at the complete revelation in D&C 13. What you said is not true (if you subscribe to D&C 13).

Second, a President of a Church can lead the people astray without the priesthood leaving the earth.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

This is a logical struggle for me.

The way I understand your position is that commandments are a necessary subset of faith, and therefore are part of LDS doctrine.  ‘Commandments’ is a pretty broad topic, as I’m sure you know better than I do.

What that position does (in my understanding) is significantly broadens your earlier statement that the four pillars of faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost are the doctrine, and anything else puts us on sandy foundations.  Suddenly, anything that at one point or another taught as a commandment is part of doctrine.  Conflicts and confusion ensue.

With God, nothing s impossible. However, D&C 1:35-37 allows the following: “I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know that the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion. And also the Lord shall have power over his saints, and shall reign in their midst [via the earthly kingdom, the Church], and shall come down in judgment upon Idumea, or the world. Search these commandments*, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.”

* which includes D&C 24:19, 27:13 and other references to this being the “last time” the priesthood is given to servants to complete His work.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Remember on a previous thread where you pointed out that the Brigham Young quote on offense was incomplete?

I’d advice [sic] you to look at the complete revelation in D&C 13. What you said is not true (if you subscribe to D&C 13).

 

I'm quite well acquainted with Doctrine and Covenants 13. When I was ward choir director, I even set the words to music for our choir to sing.

Quote

Second, a President of a Church can lead the people astray without the priesthood leaving the earth.

I have great confidence in the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as mentioned in Elder Cornish's article that I linked to in the opening post:
 

Quote

 

It means that we may have complete confidence in the validity of the restored priesthood authority, the saving ordinances, the revealed doctrine, the scriptures, and the united quorums of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd