Women recieving the priesthood

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How does something like the Law of Moses fit in with this?  Was it not doctrine for it's time?

One perspective:  It was and still is doctrine for it's time and thus it is still doctrine that hasn't changed for that particular time.

Another perspective: You win. It was doctrine for it's time but it isn't doctrine for this time right now thus doctrine changes from time to time.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

One perspective:  It was and still is doctrine for it's time and thus it is still doctrine that hasn't changed for that particular time.

Another perspective: You win. It was doctrine for it's time but it isn't doctrine for this time right now thus doctrine changes from time to time.

I'm not trying to win anything, just understand how JLHPROF is thinking.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How does something like the Law of Moses fit in with this?  Was it not doctrine for it's time?

I love how this is always put up as an example of God changing doctrine when it was no such thing.  It's an example of D&C 58:32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

The Law of Moses was the Aaronic system of ordinances.  It still is.  The Melchizedek system supersedes it but doesn't change it.
Similarly the Aaronic (law of Moses) system had no power of salvation.  Baptism, endowment, etc are just as required of those in Moses day as they are today.  Their work will be done vicariously.  Nobody achieves exaltation by obedience to the Law of Moses.

If God revokes the Melchizedek and leaves us with the Aaronic we lose the blessings of the Melchizedek.  The blessings aren't transferred to the lower priesthood.  That's why scripture says if there is a change in ordinance there is a change in priesthood.  If we change the ordinances it literally affects the priesthood authority we hold.

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I love how this is always put up as an example of God changing doctrine when it was no such thing.  It's an example of D&C 58:32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

The Law of Moses was the Aaronic system of ordinances.  It still is.  The Melchizedek system supersedes it but doesn't change it.
Similarly the Aaronic (law of Moses) system had no power of salvation.  Baptism, endowment, etc are just as required of those in Moses day as they are today.  Their work will be done vicariously.  Nobody achieves exaltation by obedience to the Law of Moses.

If God revokes the Melchizedek and leaves us with the Aaronic we lose the blessings of the Melchizedek.  The blessings aren't transferred to the lower priesthood.  That's why scripture says if there is a change in ordinance there is a change in priesthood.  If we change the ordinances it literally affects the priesthood authority we hold.

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're meaning here.  Are you saying that the Law of Moses was not a doctrine but a system of ordinances?  God does seem to have changed the requirement that his people live by the Law of Mose.  But you're saying that's not a doctrinal change? 

How about the institution of the sacrament?  Was that not a change in that a new ordinance was introduced?  That would seem to constitute new doctrine for the Lord's people. 

I'm not arguing anything here, just trying to understand.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The Law of Moses was the Aaronic system of ordinances.  It still is.  The Melchizedek system supersedes it but doesn't change it.

Moses was a high priest (Melchizedek order of priesthood) over the Aaronic order of priesthood in his day.  Back then those Aaronic priests killed animals for their ordinances, but today Aaronic priests don't kill animals anymore.  Because our Lord changed that.

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Similarly the Aaronic (law of Moses) system had no power of salvation.  Baptism, endowment, etc are just as required of those in Moses day as they are today.  Their work will be done vicariously.  Nobody achieves exaltation by obedience to the Law of Moses.

The Law (laws) of Moses were given by God and God required them to observe/administer those ordinances just as much as God requires that we observe/administer the ordinances he has commanded us to observer/administer in our day.

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If God revokes the Melchizedek and leaves us with the Aaronic we lose the blessings of the Melchizedek.  The blessings aren't transferred to the lower priesthood.  That's why scripture says if there is a change in ordinance there is a change in priesthood.  If we change the ordinances it literally affects the priesthood authority we hold.

They had Moses/the Melchizedek priesthood in their day, most other men in that day just were not ordained to an office in the Melchizedek order.  And only one family line was eligible for ordination to an office in the Aaronic order.

[rongo]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh.  Did I "out" you?  Sorry!

No problem at all! 

[AtlanticMike]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t think this will happen. Fundamentals of our doctrine would have to be radically changed. For example, the essential Father/Son relationship in the Godhead, the right of the Firstborn, the fore-ordination of men to the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God as described in Alma 13, the 1909 Declaration of the First Presidency “The Origin of Man,” and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles’ 1916 Declaration “The Father and the Son.”

The 1949 first presidency letter states that the churches views on blacks wasn't policy but of direct commandment from the lord. It says, blacks are cursed with dark skin because they rejected the priesthood. Their premortal existence had a determining effect on their mortal existence and they were willing to come here, to earth no matter what the handicap. They were saying their Blackness was a handicap.

    Today, you can read the Race and the Priesthood essay and it says, "today the church disavows the THEORIES advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteousness actions in premortal life." 

     So yes, just about anything can change in a church that has continuing revelation. The brethren saved the church in 1890 reversing polygamy, and again in 1978 allowing blacks to receive the priesthood and enter the temple. If they feel the gospel is being compromised by not allowing women to hold the priesthood, they'll allow women to hold the priesthood. Am I wrong to say that reversing on polygamy in 1890 and blacks in 1978 saved the church? 

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Blessed Virgin Mary comes awfully close  

I like the (semi-) joke: why ask God to do something when you can ask His Mother to ask Him to do it? Who is He going to listen to more? 😁

So true

[JLHPROF]

48 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're meaning here.  Are you saying that the Law of Moses was not a doctrine but a system of ordinances?  God does seem to have changed the requirement that his people live by the Law of Mose.  But you're saying that's not a doctrinal change? 

I'm not sure where the confusion is.  The Law of Moses were the Levitical (Aaronic) priesthood laws and ordinances.  The Melchizedek priesthood laws and ordinances supersede them, they don't change them in any way.
We are currently operating under the Melchizedek priesthood, the Apostleship.  That's why we don't follow the Levitical laws and ordinances.  The Children of Israel (except Moses) didn't have access to the Melchizedek laws and ordinances and were required to follow the Levitical ones.  The Levitical ordinances have no power to save and especially no power to exalt.
This is not a change in any way.

Quote

How about the institution of the sacrament?  Was that not a change in that a new ordinance was introduced?  That would seem to constitute new doctrine for the Lord's people. 

Sacrifice was done in anticipation and similitude of the sacrifice of Christ.  That has not and does not change.
The sacrament is offered in remembrance of Christ (and was first on the earth when Christ lived because how could you remember something that hadn't happened).

There is a big difference between changing requirements and doctrine VS commanding/revoking.  There are ordinances that never occurred prior to Christ because the atonement had to occur first.  That is not a change in ordinance in any way.
Just as there are ordinances that never existed until this final dispensation.  Also not a change, a higher law.

God doesn't change or alter ordinances.  He commands them.  He revokes them.  And he reveals additional ones in keeping with those already revealed.  If ordinances are revoked or changed priesthood authority and blessings change too.

 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

If they feel the gospel is being compromised by not allowing women to hold the priesthood, they'll allow women to hold the priesthood.

That is the crux of the issue.

[AtlanticMike]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That is the crux of the issue.

Yes, I agree. 

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm kind of partial to it, myself (cough, cough).  

Ha! Do you mind if I offer some thoughts on the "Revelation and Non-Mormons" section? As far as Catholicism is concerned, it is a bit of a straw man. Then again, it appears LDS and protestants have contended with each other much more than LDS and Catholics, so maybe all those quotes are meant to be primarily directed at protestants.

Quote

President Daniel H. Wells, a counselor to Brigham Young in the First Presidency, declared:

[...] All their religion and piety for many generations past have not produced one word of Scripture for the guidance of mankind to salvation in this and in the next existence. While they hold up the Bible as the all-sufficient guide to the possession of life eternal, they at the same time inculcate a principle which would never have given them a Bible. [...]

For this first sentence here, I'll point out that if "Scripture" Wells means an addition to the canon, it's been quite some time for the LDS, too.

For the second sentence, this does not at all represent the position of the Catholic Church. We rely on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. The Bible alone is insufficient. And besides, we put together the Bible in the first place.

Quote

President George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presidency to John Taylor, intriguingly suggested that rejection of prophets stems from an innate desire for infallibility of one form or another:

The Bible was accepted after the reformation as infallible; it took the place of the infallibility of the Pope.

Well, at least the distinction here is made between protestantism and Catholicism. However, it grossly simplifies and overstates the Catholic position on the infallibility of the Pope. The Pope is only infallible in EXTREMELY limited cases.

Quote

Elder B. H. Roberts [...]:

[...]Catholic writers, on the other hand, insist that miracles have always continued in the church; yet those spiritual manifestations which they describe after the fourth and fifth centuries savor of invention on the part of the priests and childish credulity on the part of the people;

Yikes! Childish credulity? You mean, like believing that Jesus' spit could cure blindness? This is a sectarian judgement by Roberts for sure.

Roberts, continued:

Quote

The virtues and prodigies ascribed to the bones and other relics of the martyrs and saints are purile in comparison with the healings, by the anointing with oil and the laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, interpretations, prophecies, revelations, casting out devils in the name of Jesus Christ; to say nothing of the gifts of faith, wisdom, knowledge, discernment of spirits, etc., common in the church in the days of the apostles.

There's lots of problems here. First of all, if someone venerates a relic and that produces a miracle, how is that puerile?

Now, I'll go down the list.

Healings: one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church is the Anointing of the Sick (with oil).

Speaking in tongues: there are examples in Catholic history (and current times) of speaking in tongues. It is not denied. From the Catechism: "There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit." Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church."

Interpretations: we have 21 ecumenical councils, thousands of Papal documents (bulls, encyclicals, etc.), not to mention all of the writings of Saints and theologians. The Catholic Church has got interpretations covered, from those marked as infallible dogma on down.

Prophecies and revelations: depends on how you define the word. As I've argued elsewhere, Catholics use revelation in a different way than LDS, but we believe that God is guiding and protecting the Catholic Church through the inspiration (you would use "revelation") of the Holy Ghost. There are also many many apparitions (appearances of the Blessed Virgin and others) who give revelations and prophecies as you might use the words.

As a side note, how often are there prophecies in the LDS church? As in, "I prophecy that next year this will happen."

Casting out devils in the name of Jesus Christ: an official rite in the Catholic Church. I once had a beer with two priests, one of whom had been designated as the exorcist for our diocese by our bishop. He shared, in a non-sensationalist way, some of his experiences. It was very eye-opening, honestly.

Gifts of faith, wisdom, knowledge: very common I'd say.

Discernment of spirits: included with exorcism. Also, the Catholics probably claim to see more visions and apparitions than others, and those have to be discerned. This can be on the individual level, but also priests, bishops, and sometimes the Holy Father weigh in as to the nature of the apparition.

Roberts continues:

Quote

I apprehend that this Christian belief respecting the discontinuance of revelation came into existence as an excuse offered for the absence of revelation. Ministers . . . found themselves without communication with God, either through the visitation of angels or direct revelation. Finding themselves without these powers so abundantly possessed by the servants of God in the early age of the church, they attempted a defense of their own powerless state by saying these things were no longer needed. They were extraordinary powers only to be employed at the commencement of the work of God, in order to establish it in the earth, and afterwards to be put aside as childish things.

This does not refer to Catholicism. Of course, the difference in the meaning of the word "revelation" between our two churches could be an issue, but Catholics definitely do not believe that "the heavens are closed."

 

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

For this first sentence here, I'll point out that if "Scripture" Wells means an addition to the canon, it's been quite some time for the LDS, too.

Not nearly as long as for the Catholic church.  The 1976 revelation on all men being eligible for the priesthood regardless of the color of their skin was the latest addition to the canon.

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

For the second sentence, this does not at all represent the position of the Catholic Church. We rely on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. The Bible alone is insufficient. And besides, we put together the Bible in the first place.

Yes, and you rely on your Magisterium and your traditions more than you rely on scripture or God to tell you what scripture is.  You even kept a lot of scripture written by our Lord's prophets out of your Bible.

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Pope is only infallible in EXTREMELY limited cases.

Like when he is writing scripture?  And when was the last time one of your popes wrote some scripture?

That's enough from me, for now.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You even kept a lot of scripture written by our Lord's prophets out of your Bible.

People in glass houses.... 

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Not nearly as long as for the Catholic church.  The 1976 revelation on all men being eligible for the priesthood regardless of the color of their skin was the latest addition to the canon.

Yes, we will never add anything to the Bible. But the understanding, development, and implementation of the truths taught by Christ and His apostles continue. They are not placed in the Bible, but they are declared dogma (or often, their opposites are declared anathema), and so are equal to what is in the Bible. Hence the 21 ecumenical councils. The last ex-cathedra (infallible declaration) from the Pope was 1950. The last ecumenical council closed in 1965. So, our time frames are not all that different, unless you think 11 years is a long time.

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, and you rely on your Magisterium and your traditions more than you rely on scripture or God to tell you what scripture is. 

Do you not rely on your Magisterium (the brethren) to help you understand scripture and religious truths? I thought that was the whole point of general conference.

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You even kept a lot of scripture written by our Lord's prophets out of your Bible.

I'm curious which scripture you think should have been included in the Bible but was rejected. Do you have the names of specific books? (p.s. our Bible has more books in it than your Bible )

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Like when he is writing scripture?  And when was the last time one of your popes wrote some scripture?

Depends on what you mean by "scripture." Like I said, the Bible is closed and will not be added to. That doesn't mean that greater understanding of the Bible and Tradition will not occur.

Pope Pius XII gave the last infallible declaration on November 1, 1950, as I said above. Here is his declaration:

Quote

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

I'd say this statement can be problematic for those who say the Catholic Church does not claim revelation. Notice it begins by invoking authority, first of Christ, then Christ's apostles, and then his status as the Vicar of Christ. Next he prefaces what he is going to say as "divinely revealed." Then the statement of the dogma.

I supposed it's not "thus saith the Lord," but couldn't it pass as the LDS equivalent of "Official Declaration" and thus be scripture?

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, we will never add anything to the Bible. But the understanding, development, and implementation of the truths taught by Christ and His apostles continue. They are not placed in the Bible, but they are declared dogma (or often, their opposites are declared anathema), and so are equal to what is in the Bible. Hence the 21 ecumenical councils. The last ex-cathedra (infallible declaration) from the Pope was 1950. The last ecumenical council closed in 1965. So, our time frames are not all that different, unless you think 11 years is a long time.

I'll put it this way.  If the people who decided which writings to include in the Bible had considered the writings of other men to be scripture just as much as the writings they included in the Bible, there would have been more writings included in the Bible than are now in it.  So the only reason those other writings are not in the Bible as we now have it is because the people who decided what to put in it left some things out which they did not consider to be scripture, or at least not as much as those writings.  And that is the same reason you don't include any other writings in what you call scripture, whether or not those writings are in or outside of the Bible.  Like the Book of Mormon, for example.  You do not consider it to be scripture... even though we know very well that it is.

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you not rely on your Magisterium (the brethren) to help you understand scripture and religious truths? I thought that was the whole point of general conference.

We believe some men are prophets of God based on a personal witness from God to us, personally... those of us who have received that testimony directly from God... and we are ever hopeful that... since God has told us that he inspired those men to say what he wanted them to say which God inspired and agreed with... those men may yet again say something else which God will inspire them to say which we would regard as revelation from God and, when written, scripture.

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm curious which scripture you think should have been included in the Bible but was rejected. Do you have the names of specific books? (p.s. our Bible has more books in it than your Bible )

Well, you still haven't included the Book of Mormon, and you don't even consider it to be scripture whether it is in or outside of the Bible.  Just look at all of the books which we know are scripture which you do not think is scripture.  Some writings from, Zenos and Zenock would also be nice.

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Depends on what you mean by "scripture." Like I said, the Bible is closed and will not be added to. That doesn't mean that greater understanding of the Bible and Tradition will not occur.

I'm talking about more scripture, not just commentaries or discourses about what is in the Bible.  

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Pope Pius XII gave the last infallible declaration on November 1, 1950, as I said above. Here is his declaration:

I'd say this statement can be problematic for those who say the Catholic Church does not claim revelation. Notice it begins by invoking authority, first of Christ, then Christ's apostles, and then his status as the Vicar of Christ. Next he prefaces what he is going to say as "divinely revealed." Then the statement of the dogma.

I supposed it's not "thus saith the Lord," but couldn't it pass as the LDS equivalent of "Official Declaration" and thus be scripture?

If what he said was true, maybe.  But Mary did not remain a virgin after she gave birth to the mortal body of Jesus Christ.

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'll put it this way.  If the people who decided which writings to include in the Bible had considered the writings of other men to be scripture just as much as the writings they included in the Bible, there would have been more writings included in the Bible than are now in it.  So the only reason those other writings are not in the Bible as we now have it is because the people who decided what to put in it left some things out which they did not consider to be scripture, or at least not as much as those writings.  And that is the same reason you don't include any other writings in what you call scripture, whether or not those writings are in or outside of the Bible.

This is rather a tautology, and is equally true for the LDS as for Catholics.

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Well, you still haven't included the Book of Mormon, and you don't even consider it to be scripture whether it is in or outside of the Bible.  Just look at all of the books which we know are scripture which you do not think is scripture.  Some writings from, Zenos and Zenock would also be nice.

I asked what scripture should have been included in the Bible when it was compiled but was not. The Book of Mormon doesn't work because it wasn't around. I looked up Zeno and Zenock, and they don't work either, because their writings weren't around.

I'm asking if you have a specific book that was rejected when the Bible was compiled that you think should have been included?

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm talking about more scripture, not just commentaries or discourses about what is in the Bible.  

Again, you need to define "scripture." There were be nothing more added to the Bible. However, the infallible pronouncements of ecumenical councils and Popes are doctrine, equal to the doctrine found in the Bible. They are not commentaries or discourses. They are dogma. Since they are equal to what is in the Bible, you can think about them as "scripture" even though we wouldn't use that term.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is rather a tautology, and is equally true for the LDS as for Catholics.

And your proof for your statement is, what?  Name any scripture which we LDS do not consider to be scripture.

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I asked what scripture should have been included in the Bible when it was compiled but was not. The Book of Mormon doesn't work because it wasn't around. I looked up Zeno and Zenock, and they don't work either, because their writings weren't around.

I was thinking more about the principle of the thing rather than of the names of the writins, since I do not know the names of the writings your church leaders did not include in the Bible other than what we now know is scripture which you did not include.

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm asking if you have a specific book that was rejected when the Bible was compiled that you think should have been included?

No, I don't have a specific book in mind.  I do recall from reading the Bible that some writings were mentioned in the Bible that are not included in it.  Do you know why your church did not include those? We could probably do a Google search to find the names of those writings or the prophets who wrote them.

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Again, you need to define "scripture." There were be nothing more added to the Bible. However, the infallible pronouncements of ecumenical councils and Popes are doctrine, equal to the doctrine found in the Bible. They are not commentaries or discourses. They are dogma. Since they are equal to what is in the Bible, you can think about them as "scripture" even though we wouldn't use that term.

Scripture, according to a definition of scripture that is in the Bible, is that which holy men (and I would include women too) write when moved upon (inspired) by the Holy Ghost.

[MiserereNobis]

24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And your proof for your statement is, what?  Name any scripture which we LDS do not consider to be scripture.

First Book of Maccabees, for starters  

27 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I do not know the names of the writings your church leaders did not include in the Bible other than what we now know is scripture which you did not include.

This doesn't make sense. You say you don't know the names of the writings that were excluded when the Bible was compiled. But then you go on to say "other than what we know now" which means you do know the names of writings which were excluded. So which is it? What writings were excluded from the Bible when it was compiled that should have been included when it was compiled? If you don't know, then you can't say scripture was excluded when the Bible was compiled.

30 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Do you know why your church did not include those? We could probably do a Google search to find the names of those writings or the prophets who wrote them.

Yes, they were excluded because they could not be determined to be accurate. I find it interesting that you call the authors of these excluded texts prophets. How do you know they were prophets?

31 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Scripture, according to a definition of scripture that is in the Bible, is that which holy men (and I would include women too) write when moved upon (inspired) by the Holy Ghost.

Well, then in that case feel free to consider the declarations of the ecumenical councils scripture.

[LDS Watchman]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Am I wrong to say that reversing on polygamy in 1890 and blacks in 1978 saved the church? 

I'm sure the brethren made these changes because they wanted to save the church. There was great external and internal pressure to make these changes. 

But I don't think these changes saved the church. I believe both were compromises with the world. 

But all is not lost. God knew this would happen and has a plan in place to correct the situation eventually.

[Peacefully]

7 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I'm sure the brethren made these changes because they wanted to save the church. There was great external and internal pressure to make these changes. 

But I don't think these changes saved the church. I believe both were compromises with the world. 

But all is not lost. God knew this would happen and has a plan in place to correct the situation eventually.

What is the “correction”? To bring back polygamy and once again ban black men from holding the priesthood? 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Peacefully

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

First Book of Maccabees, for starters  

I consider that to be scripture, or at least partly inspired by the Holy Ghost, and I think the church, in general, or most members of the Church in general, do too.  See this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/apocrypha?lang=eng

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This doesn't make sense. You say you don't know the names of the writings that were excluded when the Bible was compiled. But then you go on to say "other than what we know now" which means you do know the names of writings which were excluded. So which is it? What writings were excluded from the Bible when it was compiled that should have been included when it was compiled? If you don't know, then you can't say scripture was excluded when the Bible was compiled.

We know now from what our Lord told us that scripture was either excluded or removed from the collection of writings that were included in the Bible.  I can find scripture to support that statement if you would like.  I just don't know those writings by name other than some of the names of some of the prophets who wrote them.

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, they were excluded because they could not be determined to be accurate. I find it interesting that you call the authors of these excluded texts prophets. How do you know they were prophets?

I call a man a prophet when I know he is or has been inspired to reveal the mind and the will of God, whether in writing or orally.  That is what I have been talking about.

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, then in that case feel free to consider the declarations of the ecumenical councils scripture.

I will only if and when God personally makes it known to me that he inspired them through the power of the Holy Ghost to say or write what they have said or written.  You don't expect me to take their or your word as God's without God telling me that, do you?

[LDS Watchman]

5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

What is the “correction”? To bring back polygamy and once again ban black men from holding the priesthood? 

Among other things yes.

Zechariah 14 says that when this correction happens "the Canaanite (blacks) will no longer be in the House of the Lord."

Polygamy is an eternal principle and will most certainly be coming back when the Lord's people are once again worthy of it.

[rodheadlee]

On 1/29/2021 at 8:07 PM, Chum said:

It's been my long experience that women are more likely to be capable at any given task.  If women holding the priesthood translated to women running stakes and wards - give that to me yesterday. Please.

Can you send a couple of sisters over to put new engine mounts on my boat engine?

P.S my boat is my home. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by rodheadlee

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Zechariah 14 says that when this correction happens "the Canaanite (blacks) will no longer be in the House of the Lord."

Please demonstrate the Cannanites referred to in Zechariah were African descent blacks.