"Prophets Saw Our Day" a repost from Nevo at MAD

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, while your post is interesting, I think you completely missed the point of the post of mine that you seemed to be responding to.

I am not the person who is reported to have directed the Church History department to "put together a committee to create answers to difficult gospel questions."

The leaders of the church seem to think that that is a worthwhile thing to do. They seem to think that a committee is needed, and that the answers need to be "create[d]".

With admitted cynicism (I assume that you would expect it of me), I outlined the steps that church leaders have given to members to help them solve problems.

Given that a GA has, by definition, an authoritative role with respect to church doctrine, procedures etc., why would it be beyond his capabilities to provide answers where needed, and if properly so directed?

So, to take it a bit further, if this creation of answers to difficult gospel questions is something important and worthwhile, why not:

a) spring a GA free from the administration of something or another

b) spread the load over the others (or call assistants - this is not hard from an organizational PoV - these guys know how to do it, right?)

c) give him a couple of days per question

It's not rocket surgery!

I wonder how many of those who have "questions" searched out the Neal A. Maxwell Institute For Religious Scholarship?

Our Mission Statement.

The Archives go back a very long way, right back to when it was known as "FARMS".

The Publications are all there to read in detail.

Online apologetic books are there to read cover to cover.

Apologetic Transcripts are there to read in detail.

Multi-Media sources are available.

Translations are available.

In view of this, does it make much sense that a "GA" should put together an ad hoc presentation to "answer questions" in one session, when 34 years of apologetic research is readily available on one website?

Did anyone ever tell Hans Mattsson that this was available? Did anyone ever ask Hans Mattsson whether he'd read any of it?

How many of YOU have read it all?

[_Sammy Jankins]

In view of this, does it make much sense that a "GA" should put together an ad hoc presentation to "answer questions" in one session, when 34 years of apologetic research is readily available on one website?

Did anyone ever tell Hans Mattsson that this was available? Did anyone ever ask Hans Mattsson whether he'd read any of it?

How many of YOU have read it all?

So the apologists are the ones with the answers.
What does a prophet do again?

[_Themis]

Did anyone ever tell Hans Mattsson that this was available? Did anyone ever ask Hans Mattsson whether he'd read any of it?

Most likely. Once you start searching for answers these sites are very easy to find, and members will tend to give them more credibility then a site that is critical of LDS truth claims.

[_Harold Lee]

To be fair a lot of us have read quite a bit of the '34years of apologetic research' :). I guess that's one way to describe their articles. Words are words though man. Text on a screen that boils down to conflicting opinion and bias over things as silly as religion. Persuasive writing and defending predetermined suppositions is the antithesis of research.

Words countering words and opinions being used to dispel doubt gets genuinely tiring to read snd take seriously. If we're lightyears apart because we choose to approach these big decisions seriously and logically, how is that our problem? I agree with that post 100% too, we'll never agree because we're approaching this from two different angles.

[_RayAgostini]

So the apologists are the ones with the answers.
What does a prophet do again?

To warn the people against sin, transgression, and iniquity. That has always been a prophet's role, to call people to repentance, not to "apologise for the faith". Prophets don't apologise. They warn.

[_Harold Lee]

So the apologists are the ones with the answers.
What does a prophet do again?

To warn the people against sin, transgression, and iniquity. That has always been a prophet's role, to call people to repentance, not to "apologise for the faith". Prophets don't apologise. They warn.

What exactly does a seer and revelator do then?

[_malkie]

Ray, why is the church making such a big deal about it - why does it need a committee to "create" answers?

ETA: If I understand what we've been taught all these years, any GA would do, because all of them, following the correct process, would arrive at the same answers.

Time for bed in my timezone.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, why is the church making such a big deal about it - why does it need a committee to "create" answers?

ETA: If I understand what we've been taught all these years, any GA would do, because all of them, following the correct process, would arrive at the same answers.

Like Orson Pratt and Brigham Young?

You have some hardening of the categories going on there, malkie.

Your "formula" fits worst stereotypes available, but then, this is Mormon Discussions.com, where Mormons are made to Stalin-march to Exmo concentration camps, to be interrogated, judged guilty, then guillotined by "da mob".

One thing I'll say for the mob, you all bite in unison, with no mercy or any attempt at understanding whatsoever.

[_malkie]

Ray, why is the church making such a big deal about it - why does it need a committee to "create" answers?

ETA: If I understand what we've been taught all these years, any GA would do, because all of them, following the correct process, would arrive at the same answers.

Like Orson Pratt and Brigham Young?

You have some hardening of the categories going on there, malkie.

Your "formula" fits worst stereotypes available, but then, this is Mormon Discussions.com, where Mormons are made to Stalin-march to Exmo concentration camps, to be interrogated, judged guilty, then guillotined by "da mob".

One thing I'll say for the mob, you all bite in unison, with no mercy or any attempt at understanding whatsoever.

Sorry, Ray, you're too subtle for me. Can you break it down a bit for me?

Are you saying that Orson Pratt and Brigham Young, though they were GAs, were not capable of providing answers? Or that they did provide answers, but unsatisfactory ones? Or that they could not be expected to produce the same answers?

Which "formula" is bad? The pattern for problem solving? Or the one that makes a GA available to address a serious problem?

I didn't look at the video - I usually don't look at videos that people post links to - so I may be missing the "bite in unison" allusion. I'll respond if you can tell me what the video is about, and why you chose it to (presumably) illustrate your point.

ETA: Or is the problem that you think I'm being unfair - expecting too much?

[_Sammy Jankins]

So the apologists are the ones with the answers.
What does a prophet do again?

To warn the people against sin, transgression, and iniquity. That has always been a prophet's role, to call people to repentance, not to "apologise for the faith". Prophets don't apologise. They warn.

But they won't provide any reason to believe their definition of sin, and when their authority is challenged they rarely respond at all. They'll just keep "warning people against sin." Well I don't believe the arbitrary declarations such as drinking coffee is sin. They need to start first with why I should believe them at all, and to do that means facing up to the difficult issues directly.
They've put the cart before the horse so to speak.