This week’s “Come Follow Me” lesson on the family proclamation

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But those words were then stricken from the written transcript, which would also seem to carry some significance.

No, the word revelatory is still there. I quoted from the official written text just this week, in my second post on this thread: 

“During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine.”

You might be thinking of something else, the earlier Boyd K. Packer talk, perhaps. 
 

What I quoted from is President Oaks’s  talk from October 2017 general conference. 

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, the word revelatory is still there. I quoted from the official written text just this week, in my second post on this thread: 

“During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine.”

You might be thinking of something else, the earlier Boyd K. Packer talk, perhaps. 
 

What I quoted from is President Oaks’s  talk from October 2017 general conference. 

Yes, I think I am thinking of Pres. Packer's talk.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

How far does it go? If you don't mind my asking or if you don't mind answering, what if the prophet said it's time to pack your bags, sell your home and move to Missouri today, would you?

If the man standing as prophet at that time stated in the name of the Lord that it was the will of God, then yes.  Absolutely.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

If the man standing as prophet at that time stated in the name of the Lord that it was the will of God, then yes.  Absolutely.

Thanks for yours and others answers. I think when I was true believing, I would have done the best I could to listen and obey.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

If you stick around the Board long enough that we become part of your circle, you won’t be able to say that any more.   

It’s a matter of definitions, I suppose. 
 

I don’t know the real-life identity of most contributors on the board. Of those I do, I don’t have any off-board interaction with them to the point where I would regard them as being in my “circle.”

[BRMC]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for yours and others answers. I think when I was true believing, I would have done the best I could to listen and obey.

There are many things I don't understand about the Church.  However, I have a very strong testimony that this is where Heavenly Father wants me to be.  Based on that, I accept the rest on faith and act obediently.  That's probably why I focus so much on the things I feel I need to know and don't worry about the "why" as much as many cultural members do.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

You do realize you are making a tired, old argument. Being born into a body we cannot relate to (or vice-versa, who can tell?) happens on all fronts of human experience, and not every person in the same way to to the same degree. Each circumstance is not a marginalization in God's eyes, and He will save each child. He can assuage our misery to a great degree in this life, even if (typically) not the temporal issue at hand. It is unwise to judge better than God can, and especially before He does, and before we've finalized our journey to resurrection (that last one is both unwise and unfair).

So be miserable in this life for a future life that really nobody knows that we will have. What an awful way to live.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So be miserable in this life for a future life that really nobody knows that we will have. What an awful way to live.

Ha-ha, thank you for summarizing your attitude and your way of life!

[Rain]

43 minutes ago, BRMC said:

There are many things I don't understand about the Church.  However, I have a very strong testimony that this is where Heavenly Father wants me to be.  Based on that, I accept the rest on faith and act obediently.  That's probably why I focus so much on the things I feel I need to know and don't worry about the "why" as much as many cultural members do.

Just because you worry about the why and other questions doesn't mean you are a cultural member.  There are many who have struggled over questions like those who were faithful, obedient members and have fasted and prayed over the answers.  

[BRMC]

30 minutes ago, Rain said:

Just because you worry about the why and other questions doesn't mean you are a cultural member.  There are many who have struggled over questions like those who were faithful, obedient members and have fasted and prayed over the answers.  

It wasn't accusatory.  I was saying that because I wasn't raised in the Church, whose culture seems to encourage deep study, historical questioning, and pondering, is perhaps the reason I don't desire to go down those paths.  It could also be that because I wasn't raised in the Church I don't have the base knowledge that you all do, so I have so many other things that seem more important to learn.  I wasn't using "cultural member" as a pejorative.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, a sola scriptura believer.  That makes it both harder and easier.

If I recall both JFS and Harold B Lee said our doctrine in in our scripturas and official pronouncements by the FP.  Anything outside of that can be set aside.  I guess these two prophets were sola scriptura belaivers as well.

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because scripture doesn't contain all truth about the gospel, that allows us to wrest "our doctrine" to match whatever we want.  Much as you're doing with the Junia verse.  Our doctrine says that there aren't female Apostles, but the way you read Romans lets you make that match your view.

Sure.  Just like you are doing about Jesus being married to three or more women. Oh the irony....

 

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If only there was a way to know truth not fully detailed in scripture...

It is tough row to hoe for you.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Teancum

[Rain]

 

 

11 minutes ago, BRMC said:

It wasn't accusatory.  I was saying that because I wasn't raised in the Church, whose culture seems to encourage deep study, historical questioning, and pondering, is perhaps the reason I don't desire to go down those paths.  It could also be that because I wasn't raised in the Church I don't have the base knowledge that you all do, so I have so many other things that seem more important to learn.  I wasn't using "cultural member" as a pejorative.

Thanks.  Usually when people say cultural members they mean only there for social reasons.

[BRMC]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

 

Thanks.  Usually when people say cultural members they mean only there for social reasons.

I'm a convert.  I don't know all those crazy terms the folks out in the motherland have.  🙂

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, BRMC said:

Sure.  And I'll follow the Prophet.  We've already established why.  

Bully for you.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, BRMC said:

No, because God tells us through His Prophets that it is His word.  You don't have to believe it, but that doesn't change the fact.   If you aren't willing to accept, and be respectful of, the fact that we are followers of God then I'm really not sure why you're here unless it's to stand on the sidelines and denounce/ridicule.  

I told you why I am here. If that bugs you tough for you. If I am not welcome the mods can send me packing.  So stop whining about this. It is tiresome and boring. 

As for your claim that the prophets you follow are really speaking for God the burden of proof is on you.  I am here to discuss such things and challenge it. And to be persuaded as well if the argument for your positions are persuasive.  Yours are not.  If your tender testimony cannot handle that to bad for you.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Ha-ha, thank you for summarizing your attitude and your way of life!

Yep.  I will live a life I know I have to its fullest without having to obey some pretended authority for something you and nobody really knows what we have alter this life, regardless of your self assured assurance that you know what happens after we die.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

This is a discussion forum. 

 

BRMC apparently wants an echo chamber.  He/She is new here and wants to kick out dissidents. 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, BRMC said:

Of course they don't, but why come here to tell us we're wrong?   Would you go to another Protestant forum just to tell them their female pastor doesn't have that Priesthood office?  To what end?

Dude this is a DISCUSSION BOARD.  As I mentioned there used to be a lot of posters that had varying views that were not LDS orthodox. Why are you crying so much about this?  You are not the one to set the tone for this board. Give it a rest.

4 hours ago, BRMC said:

 

I beg to differ.

Yea ok. I think you are pretty much a jerk as well.

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If I recall both JFS and Harold B Lee said our doctrine in in our scripturas and official pronouncements by the FP.  Anything outside of that can be set aside.  I guess these two prophets were sola scriptura belaivers as well.

It is tough row to hoe for you.

Those two prophets apparently were in the minority.

• Joseph taught that there was "No Salvation between the two lids of the bible without a legal administrator.”
   
• Brigham agreed - At a meeting in Joseph’s home, Hyrum spoke on the importance of the scriptures, admonishing that “We must take them as our guide alone.” After Hyrum sat down, Brigham Young, the president of the Twelve, stood, piled the books of scripture on top of each other, and said, “I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for all those books for my salvation without the living oracles. I should follow and obey the living oracles for my salvation instead of anything else”.
   
• Wilford Woodruff agreed quoting the same story - Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” [In Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19]
   
• And Ezra Taft Benson taught that "The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works."

So no, I am not a sola scriptura believer at all.  In fact, I fail to see why the writings of someone like Paul should be given any greater weight than the writings of Joseph Smith.
For example his epistle to the Ephesians was simply a letter he wrote to a group of believers.  That's it, a letter.  Not a revelation, a vision or anything else.  Ephesians (for example) holds no more weight in my eyes than the King Follett Discourse.
One was Joseph's understanding, the other Paul's. 

 

[Teancum]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Those two prophets apparently were in the minority.

• Joseph taught that there was "No Salvation between the two lids of the bible without a legal administrator.”
   
• Brigham agreed - At a meeting in Joseph’s home, Hyrum spoke on the importance of the scriptures, admonishing that “We must take them as our guide alone.” After Hyrum sat down, Brigham Young, the president of the Twelve, stood, piled the books of scripture on top of each other, and said, “I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for all those books for my salvation without the living oracles. I should follow and obey the living oracles for my salvation instead of anything else”.
   
• Wilford Woodruff agreed quoting the same story - Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” [In Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19]
   
• And Ezra Taft Benson taught that "The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works."

So no, I am not a sola scriptura believer at all.  In fact, I fail to see why the writings of someone like Paul should be given any greater weight than the writings of Joseph Smith.
For example his epistle to the Ephesians was simply a letter he wrote to a group of believers.  That's it, a letter.  Not a revelation, a vision or anything else.  Ephesians (for example) holds no more weight in my eyes than the King Follett Discourse.
One was Joseph's understanding, the other Paul's. 

 

It would be a wonderful thing if the LDS leaders could get this all straight.

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, BRMC said:

There are many things I don't understand about the Church.  However, I have a very strong testimony that this is where Heavenly Father wants me to be.  Based on that, I accept the rest on faith and act obediently.  That's probably why I focus so much on the things I feel I need to know and don't worry about the "why" as much as many cultural members do.

 Mormonism was founded by someone who questioned why.

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yep.  I will live a life I know I have to its fullest without having to obey some pretended authority for something you and nobody really knows what we have alter this life, regardless of your self assured assurance that you know what happens after we die.

Ha ha -- my comment, if you dare trace it back, was exactly the opposite. And don't you mean "self assured assurance... after we die death"?

[BRMC]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

 Mormonism was founded by someone who questioned why.

I understand that.  I just don't have the same compulsion at this point.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It would be a wonderful thing if the LDS leaders could get this all straight.

Actually, it's a false dichotomy.
They're all right.

Not every opinion is official doctrine.  And not every true doctrine is found in official sources.
But the critics like to make it as big an issue as they can.  I kind of agree with Joseph - "

"The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Ha ha -- my comment, if you dare trace it back, was exactly the opposite. And don't you mean "self assured assurance... after we die death"?

Haha  I am not following. But it is probably not worth chasing. Merry Christmas to you.