Anniversary of the “The Policy”

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You claimed that I rejected the Lord's teachings.  CFR.

I'm uninterested in your rhetorical games at this point, mate. One can claim that any teaching of the Church is not the Lord's teaching if it suits his agenda. No, thanks.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm uninterested in your rhetorical games at this point, mate. One can claim that any teaching of the Church is not the Lord's teaching if it suits his agenda. No, thanks.

Are you refusing to answer his CFR?

If so, you should retract your statement about how Rockpond has rejected the Lord's teachings. If you're going to call him to repentance for doing something you should at least be able to show where he did it.

Or are you above following board rules?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Go and sin no more. You are forgiven. Stop doing what you are doing.

What if she had continued after being commanded by Jesus to stop? 

I have absolutely no doubt that the Savior would not call her names and not place anything in the way of her drawing closer to Him in any way she or her children could.

[california boy]

I honestly don't expect most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to really understand the impact of this and other policies directed at those that are gay.  It took me a very long time to come to grips with what it means to be gay in the Church. Why would I expect others who are not gay to understand how these hostile policies towards gay couples impact the lives of something most just simply don't identify with.

My only objection is the rationalizing that such a divisive and hurtful policy directed at these gay families is somehow good for them.  Please.  Is there a huge groundswell from the gay community about how grateful they are to the church for instituting these policies?  Is the Church well known for how kind and respectful they treat those that are gay?  Do people look at how the church treats gays and think it is a model for how the Savior would treat gays?  Few outside the church buy any of this BS that somehow it is for the good of gay families and their children. It is the rationalization for a discriminating policy.  We have seen it before. 

I want to add that I am just as guilty of doing this kind of rationalization for discrimination as those supporting this policy in the church today.  I was one of those young missionaries telling everyone that God didn't want the Blacks to hold the priesthood or be married in the temple.  God discriminates, so we should too.  I also told those families that a prophet of God was doing what was asked of him.  I felt bad for blacks.  I had compassion for them.  But I was only following what God wanted me to do.  Perhaps this is Karma.  Now me and my companion are the ones the Church is barring from those temple blessings.  Now I am the one that feels the discrimination of the church.  I was so sure Church leaders spoke for God that I couldn't see that Christ would never do what the Church was asking members to believe.

[Calm]

Quote

While divorce is an option, I don't think the Church encourages people in such relationships to get a divorce in order to join the Church.  Does anyone know more about this?

It has been many years, but I was told by a former missionary to Africa that polygamous families were told to stay intact rather than be baptized.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Quote

Go and sin no more. You are forgiven. Stop doing what you are doing.

What if she had continued after being commanded by Jesus to stop? 

I have absolutely no doubt that the Savior would not call her names and not place anything in the way of her drawing closer to Him in any way she or her children could.

A matter of perspective, I suppose.

"Go, and sin no more" encompasses quite a bit, IMO (John 8:11).  Same with Mark 2:17:

Quote

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

And Mark 10:

Quote

17 ¶ And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

"For he had great possessions."  He valued something more than he valued discipleship and obedience.

I think we must approach and accept Jesus Christ on His terms, not ours.  That's the only explanation I can think of for Matthew 7:

Quote

21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

And also Romans 10:

Quote

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Jesus calls us all to repentance.  He wants us to be obedient to Him, even if it means giving up "great possessions."  He wants us to obey Him, to submit ourselves to His "righteousness" rather than establishing our own.  If we reject the will of God in favor of our personal preferences and what we think of as "righteousness," that just doesn't seem to end well.

I'm also reminded here of these remarks by Elder Christofferson:

Quote

“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt,” Elder Christofferson explained. “We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained.

“That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift, and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased.”

Having "love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving and doing all we can," while also "maintaining the standards He maintained."

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 13, 2018 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I have absolutely no doubt that the Savior would not call her names and not place anything in the way of her drawing closer to Him in any way she or her children could.

Which leaves unanswered the question of what happens when a person refuses to repent. People always have that choice today.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which leaves unanswered the question of what happens when a person refuses to repent. People have that choice today.

Now if that were answered we wouldn't have any emotional climaxes, which of course is the purpose of these "discussions."

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which leaves unanswered the question of what happens when a person refuses to repent. People always have that choice today.

Well fortunately that is up to God, not the church

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well fortunately that is up to God, not the church

Well, the Church certainly has a role to play.  "Judges in Israel" are supposed to judge, after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

On 11/11/2018 at 7:15 PM, Calm said:

@Gray,

“Nor do they have enough influence in most churches to have church leadership give them special dispensation to sin, as happens for straight people in the LDS Church”

meaning what sin straight people have special dispensation for exactly? 

The sin of getting remarried after a divorce, which Jesus called adultery. One of the most well attested teachings of the historical Jesus.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Well fortunately that is up to God, not the church

 The Church has the right and obligation to withdraw fellowship from the unrepentant. I just read about Mormon giving up on the Nephites and their subsequent destruction.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

Just now, Gray said:

The sin of getting remarried after a divorce, which Jesus called adultery. One of the most well attested teachings of the historical Jesus.

Let's not regress in our discussions.  If we are to meaningfully and substantively address an issue like this, it won't do to gloss over and ignore the Church's actual teachings.  We could start with these resources:

• Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "divorce"
• April 2007 General Conference Talk, "Divorce," by Elder Dallin H. Oaks
• FAIR Article: "Why do Mormons allow divorce if Jesus said that divorce is not allowed except for fornication?"

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 The Church has the right and obligation to withdraw fellowship from the unrepentant.

The right?  Yes.

The obligation?  I'm not sure.

Referring to it as "welcoming"?  Nope.  Withdrawing fellowship is basically the antithesis of "welcoming".

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 The Church has the right and obligation to withdraw fellowship from the unrepentant. I just read about Mormon giving up on the Nephites and their subsequent destruction.

I am befuddled at how often this issue comes up.  The notion that those in the throes of unrepentant sin and rebellion are nevertheless to entitled to all the blessings arising under the covenants we have with God.

I've lost count the number of times I have copied and pasted the following bullet list:

Quote

Quote

Guess I'm still not sure what is meant by disregarding apostasy.

Really?  If a Latter-day Saint went public with sordid details about his being in an ongoing adulterous relationship, and if his statements glory in these acts and declare his lack of remorse and desire to continue in these acts, and if the Church became aware of and did nothing in response to such public declarations, would any rational person be able to dispute the Church's stance as "disregarding" that person's sinful conduct?

If we, as rational human beings, can discern what it means to "disregard" unrepentant adultery, then I think we can do the same with what it means to "disregard" unrepentant apostasy (with the caveat that such determinations are the responsibility of priesthood leaders having stewardship of the person in question).  Put another way, the Church should not ignore unrepentant apostasy or play dumb when it arises.  In this the Church has a fairly clear mandate:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

As I have said before regarding the Calderwoods: "Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community."

I stand by this statement.

Quote

Can we not acknowledge that some members believe differently, even if that differently is seen by many as being apostate?

Yes, I suppose we can acknowledge that. But if a person "believes differently" and if he publishes these statements to the world, and if those statements amount to false doctrine or some other manifestation of apostasy, and if those in authority (that is, priesthood leaders acting within their stewardship, in accordance with the laws and procedures promulgated in scripture and by the Church, and under the direction of the Spirit) make such a determination, and if the person refuses to repent, then it appears that the Church must proceed according to the divine mandate given to it by God.

Most of these mandates also apply to other forms of misconduct, not just apostasy (such as serious violations of the Law of Chastity).

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

@Calm asked:  "what sin straight people have special dispensation for exactly?"

 

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

The sin of getting remarried after a divorce, which Jesus called adultery. One of the most well attested teachings of the historical Jesus.

 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Let's not regress in our discussions.  If we are to meaningfully and substantively address an issue like this, it won't do to gloss over and ignore the Church's actual teachings.  We could start with these resources:

• Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "divorce"
• April 2007 General Conference Talk, "Divorce," by Elder Dallin H. Oaks
• FAIR Article: "Why do Mormons allow divorce if Jesus said that divorce is not allowed except for fornication?"

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

From the FAIR article above, quoting Pres. (then Elder) Oaks:  "the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard"

Sounds like @Gray is correct.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

The right?  Yes.

The obligation?  I'm not sure.

I am.

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."

What do you make of these passages?

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Referring to it as "welcoming"?  Nope.  Withdrawing fellowship is basically the antithesis of "welcoming".

Not really.  Withdrawing "fellowship" as per D&C 134:10 means, I think, the termination of the individual's right to participate "in fellowship" in the Church (hold callings, pay tithing, speak in church, offer prayers in church, hold a temple recommend, exercise the priesthood, etc.).

However, "fellowship" in a more general sense (remaining friends, welcoming the person to attend services (provided they are not disruptive/disrespectful), etc.) is pretty much always there.

And the individual is always invited to repent and return to full fellowship.

So I disagree that there is any "antithesis" of "welcoming" here.

Consider the following verses (several quoted from Isaiah) in The Book of Mormon:

• "Therefore, is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them; and the hills did tremble, and their carcasses were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."  (2 Nephi 15:25)
• "The Syrians before and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. ... Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows; for every one of them is a hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. ... Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh; they together shall be against Judah. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."  (2 Nephi 19:12, 17, 21)
• "Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."  (2 Nephi 20:4)
• "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."  (Mosiah 3:19)

Discipline and love are not the antitheses of each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

@Calm asked:  "what sin straight people have special dispensation for exactly?"

 

 

 

From the FAIR article above, quoting Pres. (then Elder) Oaks:  "the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard"

Sounds like @Gray is correct.

I don't think so.  Gray is saying that remarriage after divorce is a sin.  It's not.  From Elder Oaks' talk:

Quote

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Let's not regress in our discussions.  If we are to meaningfully and substantively address an issue like this, it won't do to gloss over and ignore the Church's actual teachings.  We could start with these resources: 

• Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "divorce"
• April 2007 General Conference Talk, "Divorce," by Elder Dallin H. Oaks
• FAIR Article: "Why do Mormons allow divorce if Jesus said that divorce is not allowed except for fornication?"

Thanks,

-Smac

 

The church does not treat remarriage as adultery, contrary to Jesus' teachings. I guess some people's sins are easier to overlook.

[Gray]

Just now, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  Gray is saying that remarriage after divorce is a sin.  It's not.  From Elder Oaks' talk:

Thanks,

-Smac

I suppose if Elder Oaks says so, it doesn't matter what God says on the topic.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

The church does not treat remarriage as adultery, contrary to Jesus' teachings. I guess some people's sins are easier to overlook.

Again, from Elder Oaks' talk:

Quote

Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.

Again, let's not regress in our discussions.  If you want to discuss this, I'm all ears.  But please address the substantive position of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I suppose if Elder Oaks says so, it doesn't matter what God says on the topic.

"What God says" is based on representations given to us through an apostle.  Surely you concede that.

And then there's D&C 1:38: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

C'mon.  This is basic stuff.  Why are you ignoring obviously relevant considerations such as these?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 10:17 AM, california boy said:

It is not just the denying the pleasures of the flesh.  It is denying the entire plan of marriage, family, love, the very core of the plan of salvation because you are gay, when those that have such opportunities are scoffing and dismissing those who can not participate in that plan their entire lives.  Those that make it all about sex fail to see the implications of such a life.  I have yet to hear one person who makes such a commentx as Carbon Dioxice or StormRider say they are willing to give up their families, their children, their love, their joys in order to be a member of the church, comparing gays to wayward children who just don't want the billion from a wealthy parent.

I don't mind the policy as much as I mind the dismissive nature of those that don't have to live such a policy.  When their grandchildren are not allowed to be baptized because of the sins of the parents, then let's see how enthusiastic and justified they believe this policy is.

Obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ or to the plan of God's exaltation of his children does not affect simply gay individuals. All of God's children are affected. Now, if you want to say that your cross to bear is heavier than everyone else's personal cross I will not argue with you. I simply don't know; I only know my own cross weighs heavy on me. However, let's agree with you that your cross is significantly harder to bear than mine; then it puts you in good company with the Savior. His cross was such that the mere thought of it caused him to bleed from every pore. The point is that Christ did not run from his cross; he bore it willingly for love of his Father.  

None of us knows the cross of another, but we do know the Savior's cross was harder than our own. You think we are too cavalier in stating the commandments and teachings of Christ when they affect you so directly. I believe that each of us walks our own small path to our own Calvary. Following Christ is not easy and it demands a desire to completely subject ourselves to His Will.  You are not alone and never have been. You stand with all the disciples of Jesus Christ seeking to submit to him. 

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

I suppose if Elder Oaks says so, it doesn't matter what God says on the topic.

Matthew 16:19 has been very helpful to me in understanding the power and authority that God gives to His servants on earth as well as the trust that He has in them.

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And then there's D&C 1:38: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Ah yes, the Mormon trump card.  Whatever the prophets say is suddenly the voice of the Lord.

Except when it's not.