How Many Women Are Leading Service at Home?

[MorningStar]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Well played.  

But did he get permission from the person with the keys?  

He felt he had a right to do it without permission.

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Your opinion is your conviction.  Some of these women, so my sister says, have been ordained by active, temple-going members of the priesthood.

If by this you mean that such ordination occurred as part of the temple ordinances, you and they are misunderstanding what occurred in the temple. Nothing that transpires therein confers the priesthood on women, nor does it authorize women to carry out such priesthood functions as blessing and passing the sacrament. 
 

If by the above you mean that these women were “ordained” in some sort of ad hoc, pseudo ceremony outside of the temple, the men who performed it did so without any valid authorization from those holding keys (the right of presidency) to direct the performance of priesthood ordinances such as ordaining others to the priesthood. The men in that case would be in serious error and in grave need of repentance. 
 

And no, this is not just my opinion. It is an expression of doctrine. 

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Your opinion is your conviction.  Some of these women, so my sister says, have been ordained by active, temple-going members of the priesthood.

Ordination to the priesthood and administering ordinances do not work this way.

AoF 1:5 - "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

"The laying on of hands by those who are in authority" hasn't happened with your sister or her friends.  I just don't believe it.  

Your sister and her friends are dabbling in false doctrine.  They are manifestly and unequivocally incorrect on this issue. 

Thanks,

Smac

Edited March 24, 2020 by smac97

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

Some of these women, so my sister says, have been ordained by active, temple-going members of the priesthood.

Sounds like a big ball of hearsay, miscommunication, misunderstanding, and possibly even a dash of outright rebellion. 

Good luck with that. 

 

[Navidad]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ordination to the priesthood and administering ordinances do not work this way.

AoF 1:5 - "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

"The laying on of hands by those who are in authority" hasn't happened with your sister or her friends.  I just don't believe it.  

Your sister and her friends are dabbling in false doctrine.  They are manifestly and unequivocally incorrect on this issue. 

Thanks,

Smac

Hi Smac - trust all is well with you. I admire how you always are able to look things up, provide references, citations so quickly. Are you a reference librarian in your real life? 

Also, I am just curious and would appreciate a candid response from you - and probably a bunch of references too! Ha! As you and most on the forum most likely know - I was ordained to the ministry of the gospel in another faith group. The bishops and other elders (those with authority in our faith) laid hands on me, used consecrated oil and ordained me. Thus I have "authority" to bless, serve, and pass the sacrament in my own faith tradition. Am I dabbling in false doctrine by exercising that authority in a non-LDS setting? Am I manifestly and unequivocally incorrect in so doing? I can't go to ward this Sunday; if I bless, serve, and pass the sacrament in my own home according to my own tradition am I doing something false and incorrect? I believe it was Spencer Kimball (I may be wrong - but I bet you know!) who said that priests of other groups who administer sacraments are engaged in blasphemy. Is that a current view among the member of the LDS church? Not trying to start a debate - just curious as to your thoughts on this issue. BTW, when are you coming to the colonies? I want to take you up to Temple Hill by Pacheco. Such a beautiful isolated place! I wish the Church would buy the property! I talked with Jenny Lund, the head of sacred sites about that several years ago. She told me to fill out and turn in a form. I have never done that. I think I have it somewhere around here in my office mess! 

Edited March 24, 2020 by Navidad

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Smac - trust all is well with you. I admire how you always are able to look things up, provide references, citations so quickly. Are you a reference librarian in your real life? 

Also, I am just curious and would appreciate a candid response from you - and probably a bunch of references too! Ha! As you and most on the forum most likely know - I was ordained to the ministry of the gospel in another faith group. The bishops and other elders (those with authority in our faith) laid hands on me, used consecrated oil and ordained me. Thus I have "authority" to bless, serve, and pass the sacrament in my own faith tradition. Am I dabbling in false doctrine by exercising that authority in a non-LDS setting? Am I manifestly and unequivocally incorrect in so doing? I can't go to ward this Sunday; if I bless, serve, and pass the sacrament in my own home according to my own tradition am I doing something false and incorrect? I believe it was Spencer Kimball (I may be wrong - but I bet you know!) who said that priests of other groups who administer sacraments are engaged in blasphemy. Is that a current view among the member of the LDS church? Not trying to start a debate - just curious as to your thoughts on this issue. BTW, when are you coming to the colonies? I want to take you up to Temple Hill by Pacheco. Such a beautiful isolated place! I wish the Church would buy the property! I talked with Jenny Lund, the head of sacred sites about that several years ago. She told me to fill out and turn in a form. I have never done that. I think I have it somewhere around here in my office mess! 

When did President Kimball say that ministers of other faiths are guilty of blasphemy? It’s possible, I suppose, but it doesn’t sound like him. 
 

Edited to add: Never mind. I did a search and saw that you had a thread on this matter some time back and that you cited Miracle of Forgiveness. 

In glancing through that thread, I noticed   that Rory (3DOP), a Catholic who posts here and understands us pretty well, gave a good response, one that I agree with. Here it is in part: 

 

“Surely you can see how crazy it would be if Catholics thought that anybody could validly celebrate the Eucharist or give absolution for the remission of sins. I think rather than trying to accuse others of blasphemy, the author is explaining to fellow LDS how crazy it would be for them, if they just believed willy nilly that pure motives allows everybody else to do what only priests can do for the Latter-day Saints.”

Edited March 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I was ordained to the ministry of the gospel in another faith group. The bishops and other elders (those with authority in our faith) laid hands on me, used consecrated oil and ordained me. Thus I have "authority" to bless, serve, and pass the sacrament in my own faith tradition. Am I dabbling in false doctrine by exercising that authority in a non-LDS setting?

I seem to recall Dan Peterson once saying something along the lines of how, in polite company, one doesn't generally walk around asking those of other faiths if they think members of their own faith are heretics. 

I would say that LDS ecclesiology shares some similarities with Catholic ecclesiology. Each claims to be the only true, institutional church while accepting that others may be authentically attempting to follow Christ, even if they happen to be part of other religious traditions. 

I am reminded of a passage in the Book of Mormon where it talks about there being two churches: "Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." (1 Nephi 14:10)

It is my belief that all who genuinely desire to follow Christ are members of the "church of the Lamb of God," even if they are not presently members of the institutional church which Christ himself has established on the earth today - namely, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, since the authority to perform or administer priesthood ordinances lies exclusively within the institutional church, any extra-denominational performance of those ordinances - even if similar in form, intent, etc. - are considered to be of no effect in the eternities. 

So, here's my advice: after you die and the missionaries still come by to visit with you - it's time to listen up and get baptized.  

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi Smac - trust all is well with you. I admire how you always are able to look things up, provide references, citations so quickly. Are you a reference librarian in your real life? 

I spent a year working at the reference desk at the law school, so some experience in that regard.  Mostly, however, providing citations to substantiate my position comes naturally.  I'm a lawyer, after all.  And I have been on this board for a long time.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Also, I am just curious and would appreciate a candid response from you - and probably a bunch of references too! Ha! As you and most on the forum most likely know - I was ordained to the ministry of the gospel in another faith group. The bishops and other elders (those with authority in our faith) laid hands on me, used consecrated oil and ordained me. Thus I have "authority" to bless, serve, and pass the sacrament in my own faith tradition. Am I dabbling in false doctrine by exercising that authority in a non-LDS setting?

You are not bound by the covenants that are binding on the Latter-day Saints.  You have not been baptized into, nor submitted yourself to the authority of, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  You are not subject to the teachings and stewardship of the local and general authorities of the Church. 

The women being discussed above, however, are bound by covenants, have been baptized into the Church, and are subject to the authority and stewardship of the Church and its leaders.

I'm not really situated to speak as to the conduct of those not of our faith, particularly when the conduct is sincere and in good faith.  The exclusivity of the truth claims of my faith (particularly as pertaining to the priesthood) necessarily creates some points of incompatibility.  While I generally understand and respect the "Priesthood of All Believers" and comparable explanations for sources of priesthood authority found in other Christian faith traditions, I don't believe those concepts to be valid or correct.  Consequently, in an eschatological sense, I don't believe ordinances performed without proper authority are efficacious.  I generally abstain from expressing such thoughts, and only do so here because you have asked for my opinion.

I do have some thoughts of my own as to acting on faith, which I think is distinguishable from acting under color of priesthood authority.  Consider, for example, this passage from the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon:

Quote

28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.
29 And I, Moroni, having heard these words, was comforted, and said: O Lord, thy righteous will be done, for I know that thou workest unto the children of men according to their faith;
30 For the brother of Jared said unto the mountain Zerin, Remove—and it was removed. And if he had not had faith it would not have moved; wherefore thou workest after men have faith.

Although I am not persuaded that sacred ordinances can be performed based solely on "faith" (since priesthood authority is required to administer such ordinances, and priesthood authority requires "the laying on of hands by those who are in authority"), I think there are many other wonderful and beautiful things that can and are accomplished by individuals throughout the world who are acting based on faith.  However, I'm not prepared to go into much further detail as to my thoughts on these matters.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Am I manifestly and unequivocally incorrect in so doing? I can't go to ward this Sunday; if I bless, serve, and pass the sacrament in my own home according to my own tradition am I doing something false and incorrect?

Apart from what I said above, I express no opinion as to these matters, and leave it as a matter between you and the Lord.  I encourage you to continue to pursue and exercise faith and obedience to God in the ways that seem best to you.  

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I believe it was Spencer Kimball (I may be wrong - but I bet you know!) who said that priests of other groups who administer sacraments are engaged in blasphemy. Is that a current view among the member of the LDS church?

I assume you are referencing this:

Quote

In 1969 when Spencer W. Kimball was a member of the Council of Twelve Apostles, he wrote a book entitled “The Miracle of Forgiveness.” In it he said the following, 

“Presumptuous and blasphemous are they who purport to baptize, bless, marry, or perform other sacraments in the name of the Lord while in fact lacking his specific authorization. And no one can obtain God's authority from reading the Bible or from just a desire to serve the Lord, no matter how pure his motives.” 

This statement is also quoted in “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball” published by Deseret Book Company in its Kindle Edition with a source reference back to his 1969 book. It is not quoted in the LDS.org version of "The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball."

Then-Elder Kimball was clearly fairly strident in his remarks.  However, I struggle with the notion that, broadly speaking, the Church, its leaders, and its members condemn such actions.  For example, the Church, while not recognizing the eternal efficacy of marriages solemnized outside the temple, there is no suggestion that such solemnizations have no effect at all.

I think the Lord is wants us all to progress in our individual faith journeys toward Him.  To the extent that a person officiates in an ordinance in good faith, but without proper authority, I believe such a matter will be accorded bounteous measures of love and mercy.  We believe that the Lord "looketh down upon all the children of men; and he knows all the thoughts and intents of the heart; for by his hand were they all created from the beginning."  (Alma 18:32.) 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Not trying to start a debate - just curious as to your thoughts on this issue. BTW, when are you coming to the colonies? I want to take you up to Temple Hill by Pacheco. Such a beautiful isolated place! I wish the Church would buy the property! I talked with Jenny Lund, the head of sacred sites about that several years ago. She told me to fill out and turn in a form. I have never done that. I think I have it somewhere around here in my office mess! 

I was thinking of doing something this summer, actually.  But then Covid-19 came along...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was thinking of doing something this summer, actually.  But then Covid-19 came along...

Thanks,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful and insightful reply. I admire your knowledge and I always feel like I learn from you. That is what is most important to me. 

[mgy401]

4 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Your opinion is your conviction.  Some of these women, so my sister says, have been ordained by active, temple-going members of the priesthood.

Please report anyone (make sure you have proof) who is doing this to the Church headquarters.

They have people who will investigate and refer cases to the appropriate bishops and stake presidents.

* * * 

In all seriousness, many practices that Latter-day Saints dub “apostate” were probably implemented by the primitive church (or the last remnants thereof) due to some pressing crisis or concern.  Baptism by sprinkling makes sense for people in weak health, or where water is not readily available, or whether the Saints cannot assemble at a river/spring without drawing unwelcome attention from their enemies.  Celibacy for priests makes sense when the church is undergoing extreme persecution and priests are expected to travel widely with no guarantee they will ever return to home and family.  Selecting a random bishop (from Rome, maybe?) to take the reins of the entire Church once the apostles have died off, is preferable to the entire institution simply liquidating.

Well-intentioned—and even desperate—acts of apostasy, are still apostasy. 

[JamesBYoung]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Ordination to the priesthood and administering ordinances do not work this way.

AoF 1:5 - "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

"The laying on of hands by those who are in authority" hasn't happened with your sister or her friends.  I just don't believe it.  

Your sister and her friends are dabbling in false doctrine.  They are manifestly and unequivocally incorrect on this issue. 

Thanks,

Smac

Your opinion is your conviction.  Some of these women, so my sister says, have been ordained by active, temple-going members of the priesthood.

You are not in charge, smac97.

Amulek, the sisters are not bothered by your discomfort, I am sure.

Edited March 24, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[Calm]

12 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Some of these women, so my sister says, have been ordained by active, temple-going members of the priesthood.

Meaning what exactly?  Please spell it out so we are all on the same page. To what are these men or (are they women) ordaining some of the women to and for what purpose and how is the ordination being done?

Edited March 25, 2020 by Calm
Clarity and completeness

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

Quote

Ordination to the priesthood and administering ordinances do not work this way.

AoF 1:5 - "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

"The laying on of hands by those who are in authority" hasn't happened with your sister or her friends.  I just don't believe it.  

Your sister and her friends are dabbling in false doctrine.  They are manifestly and unequivocally incorrect on this issue. 

Your opinion is your conviction. 

I'm not stating my opinion.

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

Some of these women, so my sister says, have been ordained by active, temple-going members of the priesthood.

I don't believe it.  And if it has been done, I surmise it was done surreptitiously.  Secretly.  Deceitfully.  Dishonestly.

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

You are not in charge, smac97.

I never claimed to be.

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

Amulek, the sisters are not bothered by your discomfort, I am sure.

Sorry, I'm just not buying this.  Triple-hearsay anecdotes aren't worth much at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Quote

Some of these women, so my sister says, have been ordained by active, temple-going members of the priesthood.

Sounds like a big ball of hearsay, miscommunication, misunderstanding, and possibly even a dash of outright rebellion. 

Good luck with that. 

James is a newbie.  I think he's just trying to provoke.  Stir the pot.

What he is describing, a triple-hearsay anecdote about women being ordained to the priesthood because of the Coronavirus pandemic, is too farfetched to accept at face value.  So I don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 25, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't believe it.

There were a couple of very public ordinations (correction:  possibly only one, of a nonmember) done prior to the lifting of the Priesthood Ban, so I have little problem believing it happening with this.  "Active, temple going" has never been a guarantee of fully sustaining Church leadership.

This did result in the excommunication of those involved and last I read about it a few years ago, these individuals had never returned to the Church even after the Ban was lifted.  I am spacing on the names, so I may or may not document myself.

Added:  Names are Douglas A. Wallace and Byron Merchant...looks like this is Marchant, which explains the lack of citations, lol. Also it looks like from the link below Marchant only protested and filed lawsuits, no ordaining.

added on:  the news articles and conversations by the two appear to have moved into inaccessible cyberspace.  My memory is that at least one of the men so ordained wasn't even a member of the Church, but without access to the articles I once researched, can't confirm that.  It bugged me that the white men doing the ordaining were seen as newsworthy, memorable while those who were ordained are never mentioned, but that could be in part explained if they weren't actual members...no newsreporter would find a nonmember's participation  particularly interesting, imo.

Little more digging:

"I’m the guy who ordained Larry Lester in Portland, Oregon in 1976.
Everyone believes that I ordained him to the church priesthood.That was never the case. It was a ordination to “Levitical” priesthood not the church.

That act came after five years of refusal of church leaders to meet and discuss the matter with me. It took a lot of personal guts to make the miove but all things added to provoked the church decision to back peddle. In the process I discovered that the leaders were/are imposters in office deceiving their own for a little glory in the sunshine of fraud.

Larry later moved to the Hawaiian Islands. HE NEVER JOINED THE CHURCH."

https://mormonheretic.org/2011/07/10/events-leading-up-to-the-1978-revelation/

Marchant joins the conversation if anyone is interested.

Edited March 25, 2020 by Calm

[JamesBYoung]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

James is a newbie.  I think he's just trying to provoke.  Stir the pot.  What he is describing, a triple-hearsay anecdote about women being ordained to the priesthood because of the Coronavirus pandemic, is too farfetched to accept at face value.  So I don't.  Thanks,  -Smac

Being here a long time or a short time has nothing to do with the truth.

I have reported what I have been told, and I believe it based on others who have confirmed it.

The same unhappiness occurs when reports are confirmed of the sisters giving anointings, washings, oiling, and sealing blessings on women about to deliver.

That anyone does not like or does not believe remains immaterial to the truth of the matter.

[Rain]

5 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Your opinion is your conviction.  Some of these women, so my sister says, have been ordained by active, temple-going members of the priesthood.

This is not evidence that the practice is ok with the Lord. Some pretty vile things have been done by active, temple-going members who hold the priesthood.  

Quote

You are not in charge, smac97.

Amulek, the sisters are not bothered by your discomfort, I am sure.

What is it that you are wanting from creating this thread?

Edited March 25, 2020 by Rain

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

There were a couple of very public ordinations (correction:  possibly only one, of a nonmember) done prior to the lifting of the Priesthood Ban, so I have little problem believing it happening with this.  "Active, temple going" has never been a guarantee of fully sustaining Church leadership.

We're dealing with an anonymous, triple-hearsay anecdote.  No names.  No locations.  No way to confirm.  

Meanwhile James is playing the provocateur.

And yes, I was familiar with Douglas Wallace.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Quote

James is a newbie.  I think he's just trying to provoke.  Stir the pot.  What he is describing, a triple-hearsay anecdote about women being ordained to the priesthood because of the Coronavirus pandemic, is too farfetched to accept at face value.  So I don't.  Thanks,  -Smac

Being here a long time or a short time has nothing to do with the truth.

I disagree.  Ascertaining the verity of what you are saying depends entirely on your credibility.  You don't really have any here, largely because you haven't been here long enough for us to gauge your honesty, your ability to substantiate your claims via competent, probative evidence, etc.  We don't know you.  We have no particular reason to trust the verity of your uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, triple-hearsay anecdote.

Quote

I have reported what I have been told, and I believe it based on others who have confirmed it.

"Others who have confirmed it."  Hilarious.

I invite you to consider the meaning of "hearsay," and of your ability credibly claim that "others ... have confirmed" what you are saying.

Quote

The same unhappiness occurs when reports are confirmed of the sisters giving anointings, washings, oiling, and sealing blessings on women about to deliver.

That anyone does not like or does not believe remains immaterial to the truth of the matter.

I don't believe what you are saying is true.  And since what you are saying is uncorroborated, multiple hearsay, you don't know if what you are saying is true, either.

Mongering gossip.  That's about all you are doing.  It's unbecoming.  It is, or should be, beneath you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 25, 2020 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

We're dealing with an anonymous, triple-hearsay anecdote.  No names.  No locations.  No way to confirm.  

Meanwhile James is playing the provocateur.

And yes, I was familiar with Douglas Wallace.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, I’m not sure of the timeline now, but wasn’t Wallace doing his bogus ordaining in the late 1960s? And if so, wouldn’t that have been about the time Spencer W. Kimball made his strong condemnation of people doing unauthorized ordinances as engaging in “blasphemy,” the quote that Navidad alluded to above? 
 

Whenever a quote is cherry-picked, I think it very important to try to place it in the context of the time and setting in which the statement was made. Very, very often that makes a great deal of difference in how the statement is intended to be understood. 
 

Edited to add: Disregard. I see now that my recollection was wrong regarding the time when Wallace’s action occurred 

Edited March 25, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

wasn’t Wallace doing his bogus ordaining in the late 1960s?

https://www.amazon.com/Under-Mormon-Tree-First-Fifty/dp/1448671523

Quote

The autobiography of Mormon dissident Douglas A. Wallace who was led by paranormal experiences to ordain a Black Man to priesthood in 1976. He cites an experience of communicating with God as a child. His actions in the ordination caused a reversal of official policy by the Mormon Church two years later. He claims the Cosmos has further work for him to do even though he recently became 80 years of age!

Given certain claims he has made about Romney and others in the past, I would caution accepting his version of much as reliable.

Edited March 25, 2020 by Calm

[JamesBYoung]

The practice may not be 'ok' by some of your standards and beliefs.

That's fine.  Don't practice them.

Longevity as to the truth has nothing to with it.  One can states that all he wants, and it is still a laughable statement.  Recognizing that one is liable to agree with others who are of like mind is understandable but no guarantee of accuracy.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Meaning what exactly?  Please spell it out so we are all on the same page. What are these men or (are they women?) ordaining some women to and for what purpose and how is the ordination being done?

James, could you please answer these questions. Details do matter in this case, imo.  I know people who are using ‘ordain to the Priesthood’ in different ways, some have claimed this is what is happening to women*** in the temple and since you didn’t specify men were ordaining women, but just temple goers, it made me wonder. 

***one reasoning is only those ordained can perform ordinances and since women perform ordinances in the temple...

Quote

women and men could receive and administer sacred priesthood ordinances in holy temples...

In organizing the Relief Society, Joseph spoke of “ordain[ing]” women...

The priesthood authority exercised by Latter-day Saint women in the temple and elsewhere remains largely unrecognized by people outside the Church and is sometimes misunderstood or overlooked by those within. Latter-day Saints and others often mistakenly equate priesthood with religious office....

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/joseph-smiths-teachings-about-priesthood-temple-and-women?lang=eng

Edited March 25, 2020 by Calm

[JamesBYoung]

I have spelled it out as far as I know, Calm.

The women do not include me in their ceremonies, whether ordination, priesthood blessings, or the attendance on women who are soon to birthe.

What is clear is this: there is a dimension to women and priesthood in the LDS Church that almost all members do not know about or if they do, they know very little.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

The practice may not be 'ok' by some of your standards and beliefs.

That's fine.  Don't practice them.

The "practice" is not authorized by the Church.  That's the point.

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

Longevity as to the truth has nothing to with it.  One can states that all he wants, and it is still a laughable statement.  Recognizing that one is liable to agree with others who are of like mind is understandable but no guarantee of accuracy.

There are plenty of people here with whom I substantially disagree, but who have more personal credibility than you.  Because they've been here a while and have a track record that helps establish that credibility.  

You, meanwhile, are trying to stir the pot by purveying gossip.  We have no reason to believe your unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, hearsay.

-Smac