The Savior and Temples

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

FPR

???

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Given the facts that: (1) not all of the Saints will fit in physical Zion at Jackson County MO; and (2) the Scriptures tell us that the day will come that "among the wicked he who will not take up arms against his neighbor must needs flee to Zion for safety" (Doctrine and Covenants 45:68), I certainly hope we'll be successful in establishing "little Zion communities" outside Jackson County in the time leading up to the Second Coming!

Preferably something by the coast for those of us that live on boats.

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

FPR

 

9 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

???

Faith Promoting Rumor.

[let’s roll]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

You have a mythical view.

The "church" is a corporation sole.  The First Presidency is the only legal authority for the church.

Before the church was a "Corporation sole" it was a trust run by a "trustee in trust," or Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.  Only they could speak for the church.  

Thus, only items cleared by the First Presidency are authorized statements of the Church. 

Thus, what a general authority says in general conference is not an authorized statement, but when it is reported in conference reports it is an authorized statement.

Church manuals are authorized by the FP.  Yes, of course, manuals are written by lesser persons, but when it is published and copyrighted by the FP it becomes an authorized statement.

You can tell by looking at the published holder of the copyright or similar statements.  For instance, BH Roberts' History of the Church says the copyright is held by Heber J. Grant, president of the Church.  (He is acting for the FP.)  "Brigham Young Discourses," edited by John Widstoe, says that David O McKay is the copyright holder.  The Journal of Discourses, by contrast, is printed in Salt Lake City but it is published by John Henry Smith, an apostle.

I’m certain that the Church, however it is defined, doesn’t intend that the totality of the spiritual oil in our lamps be comprised of authorized statements of the Church.  I’m equally certain that’s not the intent of Deity.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I’m certain that the Church, however it is defined, doesn’t intend that the totality of the spiritual oil in our lamps be comprised of authorized statements of the Church.  I’m equally certain that’s not the intent of Deity.

D&C 20 distinguishes between "the Church of Christ", "church of Christ," "members of the church of Christ," and "church." There are no "members of the Church of Christ" and several churches compose the church of Christ (verse 81). There are members of the "church of Christ" which allows for the various units and for "general authorities." The Church of Christ was organized by God's command to the first elders (verses 1-3), and the churches and membership were organized under their (general) authority and stewardship.

It is only through the Church of Christ that we receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and we obtain it through membership after the manner authorized by the statements of the First Presidency (D&C 20 is an example of such a statement), which delegates all the keys for teaching, ordinances, etc.

Edited September 29, 2020 by CV75

[Ahab]

18 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

You have a mythical view.

The "church" is a corporation sole.  The First Presidency is the only legal authority for the church.

Before the church was a "Corporation sole" it was a trust run by a "trustee in trust," or Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.  Only they could speak for the church.  

Thus, only items cleared by the First Presidency are authorized statements of the Church. 

Thus, what a general authority says in general conference is not an authorized statement, but when it is reported in conference reports it is an authorized statement.

Church manuals are authorized by the FP.  Yes, of course, manuals are written by lesser persons, but when it is published and copyrighted by the FP it becomes an authorized statement.

You can tell by looking at the published holder of the copyright or similar statements.  For instance, BH Roberts' History of the Church says the copyright is held by Heber J. Grant, president of the Church.  (He is acting for the FP.)  "Brigham Young Discourses," edited by John Widstoe, says that David O McKay is the copyright holder.  The Journal of Discourses, by contrast, is printed in Salt Lake City but it is published by John Henry Smith, an apostle.

A much better answer than you gave before, at least in some details, but still you are not giving a very clear view of who (and/or what) the Church is.

Yes, the members of the Church, as a whole or in other word the majority of us, do sustain the First Presidency as our leaders and our spokesmen but still those 3 members do not constitute the whole of the Church.

How about just saying we are a body of believers that have been called by Jesus Christ and have also accepted a covenant to follow him as our Lord and Savior?

Or how about mentioning that we are the only body of believers on the planet at this time who fit the above description and also have the true priesthood of God with us, as well as the gift of the Holy Ghost?

Huh?  Why don't you mention a few things like that?  As if you were trying to tell other people what the Church is and why those other people might want to become a member of the Church with us?

Huh?  Why don't you say something like that?  Why don't cha?

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

A much better answer than you gave before, at least in some details, but still you are not giving a very clear view of who (and/or what) the Church is.

Yes, the members of the Church, as a whole or in other word the majority of us, do sustain the First Presidency as our leaders and our spokesmen but still those 3 members do not constitute the whole of the Church.

How about just saying we are a body of believers that have been called by Jesus Christ and have also accepted a covenant to follow him as our Lord and Savior?

Or how about mentioning that we are the only body of believers on the planet at this time who fit the above description and also have the true priesthood of God with us, as well as the gift of the Holy Ghost?

Huh?  Why don't you mention a few things like that?  As if you were trying to tell other people what the Church is and why those other people might want to become a member of the Church with us?

Huh?  Why don't you say something like that?  Why don't cha?

Because it isn't true.  You have a New Age or Evangelical view of the Church.  Individual members do not speak authoritatively for the Church. That includes the president of the church and apostles. 

The Church's website identifies pages that are "official."   As to "official" status, the Church's website links to a FAIR article which says that the Church must make an "official pronouncement."  

Why doncha see this?  Why are you a stalking Evangelical? 

[Ahab]

20 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Because it isn't true.  You have a New Age or Evangelical view of the Church.  Individual members do not speak authoritatively for the Church. That includes the president of the church and apostles. 

The Church's website identifies pages that are "official."   As to "official" status, the Church's website links to a FAIR article which says that the Church must make an "official pronouncement."  

Why doncha see this?  Why are you a stalking Evangelical? 

Sigh.  I suppose you did as well as you know how to tell me who (and/or what) the Church is.  You gave a few good ideas but you didn't actually make it very clear or give a complete picture.

 

[Bob Crockett]

27 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Sigh.  I suppose you did as well as you know how to tell me who (and/or what) the Church is.  You gave a few good ideas but you didn't actually make it very clear or give a complete picture.

 

When somebody says "sigh" on a message board, it means, "you are a complete idiot."  Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

The Church, when it speaks authoritatively, speaks through its First Presidency or, where there is none, the Q12 as a group. 

I hope you read that FAIR cite I gave you?  

Individual Seventies, Apostles or even the President of the Church cannot issue "official statements" unless the FP has authorized it.  Any other statement received is to ponder and consider.  I listen to my Sunday School teachers, bishop and stake president and consider and ponder what they say, but don't consider their statements as binding upon the Church.  Even the New Testament contains statements by individual apostles as well as statements issued by the apostles when they gathered as a group.

Folks don't realize that when Brigham Young seemed to go off the rails in the Journal of Discourses, (1) the JD (and the DN which reported the sermons) is not an official statement and (2) Brigham Young was not speaking officially.

Especially when the Church explicitly refers to "official statements" (did you read the link from the Church I sent you?), it implies that there are plenty of unofficial statements out there.

Thus, various myths and pet doctrines have not been recognized by the Church:  (1)  Jesus appearing in temples (although perhaps the story recounted by W Woodruff's granddaughter made it into manuals, (2) Adam - God, (3) the Sorensen geographic theory and (4) Joseph Smith translating nearly the entire BoM which his face buried in a hat.  The Sorensen model was published, in part, in two Ensign articles, but there only three or so apostles approved it.  Not a quorum and not the FP.   Why does the Church allow this kind of speculation?  Because the truth is evasive and speculation is better than nothing.

Certainly not is your Evangelical view.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[cacheman]

On 9/28/2020 at 3:07 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

The sea has aisles?

Oh.

Sorry.

Don't mind me. 

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.

Didn't Moses create an aisle in the red sea? 😜

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, cacheman said:

Didn't Moses create an aisle in the red sea? 😜

Attention K-mart shoppers:  ❄️special in aisle red sea.❄️

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The Church, when it speaks authoritatively, speaks through its First Presidency or, where there is none, the Q12 as a group. 

Otherwise when the Church speaks it (the members of it) are not speaking with any authority whatsoever?  Is that what you think?  That you have no authority at all to say anything you say?

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Otherwise when the Church speaks it (the members of it) are not speaking with any authority whatsoever?  Is that what you think?  That you have no authority at all to say anything you say?

I have no authority, as a member, to speak on behalf of the Church.  Yes.  That is what I think.   

However, the topic at hand is not my authority, but whether what constitutes an "official" statement from the church.

Rather than engage in a disingenuous exchange with you, which is unseemly, perhaps I can ask:

1.  Do you think that statements of Jesus appearing in the Temple are authoritative pronouncements from the Church?

2.  Same question:  Sorensen Ensign articles published.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I have no authority, as a member, to speak on behalf of the Church.  Yes.  That is what I think.   

I understand that I don't speak for the whole/entire Church, even though I am a member of it, and even though I have authority (priesthood) in the Church.  I am only one among many members.

Quote

However, the topic at hand is not my authority, but whether what constitutes an "official" statement from the church.

Your authority may have something to do with the question of whether or not you have authority to speak for or as a member of the Church, though.

Quote

Rather than engage in a disingenuous exchange with you, which is unseemly, perhaps I can ask:

1.  Do you think that statements of Jesus appearing in the Temple are authoritative pronouncements from the Church?

Not from the whole Church, no, but from at least one member of it, maybe, if members of the Church had some authority (or were authorized) to say what he, she or they said.

Quote

2.  Same question:  Sorensen Ensign articles published.

Same answer as mine above.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Ahab

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, cacheman said:

Didn't Moses create an aisle in the red sea? 😜

Now that you mention it, I believe he did.  I stand corrected!

 

 

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I understand that I don't speak for the whole/entire Church, even though I am a member of it, and even though I have authority (priesthood) in the Church.  I am only one among many members.

Your authority may have something to do with the question of whether or not you have authority to speak for or as a member of the Church, though.

Not from the whole Church, no, but from at least one member of it, maybe, if members of the Church had some authority (or were authorized) to say what he, she or they said.

Same answer as mine above.

Individual members could be lying or deceived.

Dr. Sorensen could be speculating and unscientific.

As a poster on this board, I can express and support my opinions.  You don't even know if I am currently a member.

[Ahab]

41 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Individual members could be lying or deceived.

Dr. Sorensen could be speculating and unscientific.

As a poster on this board, I can express and support my opinions.  You don't even know if I am currently a member.

All true.  And all the more reason why it is important for each of us to receive a testimony from God to assure us of what is true. Line upon line, and precept upon precept.

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/28/2020 at 5:02 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Oh, you Crazy Canuck!   Faith-Promoting Rumor ... or Rumour, if we're speaking Canadian, eh!

 

On 9/28/2020 at 5:02 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Fernie Poodle Rescue? are they that big to have that?

It is my understanding that "eh?" is used by Canadians of our generation but the rising generation uses "heh" (pronounced hey) to distinguish themselves.

 

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

 

It is my understanding that "eh?" is used by Canadians of our generation but the rising generation uses "heh" (pronounced hey) to distinguish themselves.

 

I use the word heh (pronounced heh) when I don't understand what someone says, and I use the word hey (pronounced hey) when I realize something or want to call something to someone's attention.  Like, hey I didn't know that!

So as far as I know I am not Canadian.

[JLHPROF]

On 9/28/2020 at 2:49 PM, Bob Crockett said:

If the Church intends you to know something, you'll be told in general conference talks or in church publications. 

Fortunately if God intends you to know something this rule doesn't apply.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Fortunately if God intends you to know something this rule doesn't apply.

Even more fortunately, God is consistent and predictable in sending us revelations through the two instruments, the Church (by authority) and our spirit (by agency), each after its own kind.

I was just reading this today in the October Ensign: “Some without authority lay claim to visions, dreams, and visitations to right the ship, guide us to a higher path, or prepare the Church for the end of the world. Others are deceived by false spirits.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2020/10/stand-on-the-rock-of-revelation?lang=eng

I think it is important to recognize and align the two kinds of revelation.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

 

It is my understanding that "eh?" is used by Canadians of our generation but the rising generation uses "heh" (pronounced hey) to distinguish themselves.

 

Fat Albert was ahead of his time! "Hey, hey hey!"