ALarson Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said: I was responding to the suggestions that it could have done with good intentions. Which is certainly true. We have no way of knowing though unless we get more information. So it doesn't do any good to keep asking and speculating....IMO
Scott Lloyd Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Maybe the Russians have recordings of those other meetings. More sarcasm? You are incorrigible, Bernard Gui.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, ALarson said: I'd say what he did with these boys, was pretty individual and personal feeling for them. And he was there to correct them, so your argument is not valid, IMO. You seem determined to misconstrue my words. I meant that it could be the sort of thing one wouldn’t insist on correcting on the spot but which one might make the subject of group instruction later. Edited February 14, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Bernard Gui Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: More sarcasm? You are incorrigible, Bernard Gui. I try to touch all the bases! Reminds me of an old cartoon I saw a long time ago...and posted on my dorm door... A nebbish in a bar is being confronted by three or four tough looking hombres. He says, “I have to warn you: I’m highly skilled in the arts of sarcasm and derision!” In case you were wondering, yes, I used a pocket protector, buttoned my shirt to the top, rolled a cuff in my jeans, had a slide rule hanging from my belt, wore US Keds, and carried one of those briefcases that opened at the top ....and play the violin. The whole package. Edited February 15, 2019 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 13 minutes ago, ALarson said: Which is certainly true. We have no way of knowing though unless we get more information. So it doesn't do any good to keep asking and speculating....IMO Which I certainly acknowledged. Have you bothered to look at YouTube?
ALarson Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Oh crud! Just looked at the clock! Ha! Time flies when you're having fun, right? 😄 1
HappyJackWagon Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 36 minutes ago, ALarson said: Good grief, Bernard! We can at least narrow it down to one of the deacons or one of the leaders who were present. From there, we have no way of knowing (right now) how it ended up on youtube or why the person recorded it (and if it was them or someone different who put it on youtube). (Where's that beating a dead horse emoji when you need it???) I'll just leave that right there. You're welcome 1
bluebell Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I see a substantial difference, though, between giving explicit instruction about the performance and procedure of an ordinance and offering personal commentary about the news of the day. He wasn't offering commentary, he was teaching something about God that he believed to be true, but that actually wasn't. I don't have a problem with that; i do think it's a great example of why we can't just assume that everything that a GA teaches to a small group is something that God wants the entire church to accept. 4
HappyJackWagon Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 1 minute ago, bluebell said: He wasn't offering commentary, he was teaching something about God that he believed to be true, but that actually wasn't. I don't have a problem with that; i do think it's a great example of why we can't just assume that everything that a GA teaches to a small group is something that God wants the entire church to accept. Soooo...not trying to be obstinate but... You really don't have any problem with a prophet, seer and revelator, a member of the First Presidency, teaching something about God that he believes to be true, but isn't? I mean, what good is a prophet, seer, and revelator if they can't even teach truth about God and His will? I know the question sounds snarky, but it's serious. There has to be some level of reliability and credibility, doesn't there? On the other hand, if a prophet, seer and revelator is merely a sage old man and can only be relied upon to point in the general right direction (Christ), maybe we should accept their limitations and not pay so much heed to the specificity of their words. 2
ALarson Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'll just leave that right there. You're welcome Hey....thank you very much 👍
Bernard Gui Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Soooo...not trying to be obstinate but... You really don't have any problem with a prophet, seer and revelator, a member of the First Presidency, teaching something about God that he believes to be true, but isn't? I mean, what good is a prophet, seer, and revelator if they can't even teach truth about God and His will? I know the question sounds snarky, but it's serious. There has to be some level of reliability and credibility, doesn't there? On the other hand, if a prophet, seer and revelator is merely a sage old man and can only be relied upon to point in the general right direction (Christ), maybe we should accept their limitations and not pay so much heed to the specificity of their words. Ummmm... 27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'll just leave that right there. You're welcome No worries. ITSFWI. Edited February 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui
ALarson Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Ummmm... No worries. But, he was addressing something different (specific to bluebell's comment): Quote he was teaching something about God that he believed to be true, but that actually wasn't. I don't have a problem with that (At least that's how I interpreted his questions) Edited February 14, 2019 by ALarson 1
pogi Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: You really don't have any problem with a prophet, seer and revelator, a member of the First Presidency, teaching something about God that he believes to be true, but isn't? If I had a problem with that, I would have gone apostate decades ago. I would be more concerned over a man who claims to never make mistakes - I think you probably would too if you were honest. 19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I mean, what good is a prophet, seer, and revelator if they can't even teach truth about God and His will? You are framing this wrong. It is not that they "can't even teach truth about God and His will", of course they can...and do. 23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: On the other hand, if a prophet, seer and revelator is merely a sage old man and can only be relied upon to point in the general right direction (Christ), maybe we should accept their limitations and not pay so much heed to the specificity of their words. They are more than sage old men. They are prophets, seers, and revelators. Yes, we should accept their limitations, but that does not necessarily mean that we should not "pay much heed to the specificity of their words." We absolutely should pay heed. We are to prayerful heed all of their words and counsel. 3
Calm Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, bluebell said: Yes, I agree we’ll have to wait and see. I do wonder if maybe Pres. Oaks believes that he taught nothing unusual, given the way he described it to the deacons (specifically where he said that the deacons have seen the correct hand usage modeled by mothers holding babies). I’ve never seen a mother move a baby to the other hand so she wouldn’t have to take the sacrament with her left. As a mother of four kids I’ve never done that myself. Perhaps Pres. Oaks believes that the membership has been actively teaching use of the right hand for decades and that’s why he called out the deacons for not doing what, in his belief, they have observed should be done? I have moved a baby most likely, but only because I am extremely right handed and I just don't reach with my left hand. I remember being annoyed when my right is pinned against the pew so I don't have enough clearance to move it. Unless you polled people, given the majority are right handed, I am not sure how one can be certain they are reaching with the right hand because of a belief and not because it is their dominant hand. Edited February 14, 2019 by Calm 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 2 hours ago, bluebell said: He wasn't offering commentary, he was teaching something about God that he believed to be true, but that actually wasn't. I don't have a problem with that; i do think it's a great example of why we can't just assume that everything that a GA teaches to a small group is something that God wants the entire church to accept. I don’t think he claimed to be doing anything other than expressing an opinion. And I stand by my position that there is a difference between that and giving authoritative instructions about the performance of sacred ordinances — which one having authority from God is authorized and given responsibility to do.
HappyJackWagon Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t think he claimed to be doing anything other than expressing an opinion. And I stand by my position that there is a difference between that and giving authoritative instructions about the performance of sacred ordinances — which one having authority from God is authorized and given responsibility to do. If someone has the context of the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet, there really isn't any distinction between listening to the prophet share his opinion or share God's will. Fundamental 6- The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture. Combine that with Fundamental 14 - The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer. I would agree that Pres. Oaks never said "thus saith the Lord" but it is certainly implied. Unless Pres. Oaks made a disclaimer that what he was sharing was just his opinion and advice, not God's will, then it would be quite reasonable to expect the deacons to believe he was speaking with God's authority. 1
Tacenda Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Perhaps she could provide the source. Sometimes it's therapy for me to go on the exmormon reddit board. I pick threads that are helpful or when I can be helpful. One thread is about Pres. Eyring and it was very positive. I guess they were wondering why he hasn't spoken as often as Oaks and Nelson. I shared an article of him and his art. And his wife having memory loss and how his watercolor paintings have been of his memories of her. Sorry for that long explanation. But I guess I don't want people to think I'm an anti, because I'm not. So that's where I saw the recording and transcript of Pres. Oaks. It was submitted by, who I thought was a young man. And it was taken down soon after because someone probably outed him to people in his ward or something when they saw his post.
bluebell Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Soooo...not trying to be obstinate but... You really don't have any problem with a prophet, seer and revelator, a member of the First Presidency, teaching something about God that he believes to be true, but isn't? I mean, what good is a prophet, seer, and revelator if they can't even teach truth about God and His will? I know the question sounds snarky, but it's serious. There has to be some level of reliability and credibility, doesn't there? On the other hand, if a prophet, seer and revelator is merely a sage old man and can only be relied upon to point in the general right direction (Christ), maybe we should accept their limitations and not pay so much heed to the specificity of their words. If he taught it over the pulpit at GC I would but in this kind of venue, no. Like I said before I think it’s a reminder that not everything that a prophet or apostle says in a random meeting is the Word of God. 1
Calm Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Fundamental 6- The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture. The inference that this means everything the prophet says is scripture is not automatically true though. For me it means I need to look for other signs besides "thus saith the Lord" to determine what is scripture. Plus I don't view scripture as infallible or the interpretation of scripture as even close to infallible. Edited February 14, 2019 by Calm 2
amo Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: If he taught it over the pulpit at GC I would but in this kind of venue, no ... So then, what with elder Bednard'statement declaring at GC that Christ's BD is on April 6th & basing this "knowledge" on "revelation"...?
SouthernMo Posted February 14, 2019 Author Posted February 14, 2019 I suspect this will all be cleared up this April at General Conference when in another stroke of bold leadership, President Nelson will summarily forbid all Mollydookers from taking the sacrament until sincere repentance and change is shown.
bluebell Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t think he claimed to be doing anything other than expressing an opinion. And I stand by my position that there is a difference between that and giving authoritative instructions about the performance of sacred ordinances — which one having authority from God is authorized and given responsibility to do. I don't think he thought that he was expressing an opinion. This is what he said at a conference at Honolulu: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: If someone has the context of the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet, there really isn't any distinction between listening to the prophet share his opinion or share God's will. Fundamental 6- The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture. Combine that with Fundamental 14 - The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer. I would agree that Pres. Oaks never said "thus saith the Lord" but it is certainly implied. Unless Pres. Oaks made a disclaimer that what he was sharing was just his opinion and advice, not God's will, then it would be quite reasonable to expect the deacons to believe he was speaking with God's authority. In response to Bluebell’s comparison I was referring to JosephFielding Smith giving his opinion about whether man would land on the moon. Please try to keep up.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I don't think he thought that he was expressing an opinion. This is what he said at a conference at Honolulu: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." I still say there is a difference between this and gjving instructions about ordinances. And I disagree that he didn’t believe he was giving his opinion. He had to have realized that. No one else among the Brethren was publicly agreeing with him. His opinion on that was quite quirky, both inside and outside of the Church. This is a dissimilar comparison. It’s like saying a prophet giving the standard procedure for performing a baptism is merely expressing his own opinion. Edited February 15, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts