Which direct commandments from the Lord do LDS follow?

[_mentalgymnast]

The validity of yesterday's Church leaders has everything to do with the legitimacy of our current leaders. Would you argue otherwise, MG?

No.

Regards,
MG

[_sunstoned]

So, was the black ban from the priesthood a) a direct commandment from the Lord as the FP proclaimed in 1949 or b) sources unknown, perhaps due to societal pressures in the mid 19th Century, as suggested by the current Essay on LDS.org?

This seems to be the 'bugaboo' issue for you sock puppet. You've brought this up a few times recently.

Ever since 1978 it doesn't matter what either did or didn't happen. It's been almost forty years now that the priesthood has been extended to the blacks.

Faithful members believe that any inequities and/or 'loose ends'...and there are probably more than a few...will be made 'right' in the timetable of the Lord.

Consider the blessings that have come to active/believing black people since 1978.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... dooxPKTzCo

Regards,
MG

Is there a statute of limitations on false prophesies, racism and really bad leadership? That is the legacy of TSCC. I regret that I represented this toxic cult for two years.

[_grindael]

Yeah, NOTHING matters from yesterday. It's all water under the bridge. This has to be the STUPIDEST apologist argument I have ever heard. Why write the Essays then, NOTHING matters. Why teach ANY Mormon History? NOTHING matters. All the Mormon "prophets" can be racist assholes, as long as it is not the CURRENT ONE. Why? It doesn't MATTER. The Book of Mormon could have come from extraterrestrials. Who cares? It was a long time ago and DOESN'T MATTER. Why tell investigators about the claimed FIRST VISION? It just DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

What a crock of crap.

[_mcjathan]

GOYA
The validity of yesterday's Church leaders has everything to do with the legitimacy of our current leaders. Would you argue otherwise, MG?

***powerful***

Yes, it is powerful.
Whenever modern church leaders bear their testimony of Joseph Smith, what they are actually doing is bearing testimony by proxy of their own legitimacy.

I remember falling out of my chair when President Hinckley said this in the April 2007 General Conference:

How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith...

Wait... What? Isn't Joseph Smith a man? Wait... What? Isn't President Hinckley a prophet who knows for himself?

Legitimacy by proxy indeed.

[_Maksutov]

Yeah, NOTHING matters from yesterday. It's all water under the bridge. This has to be the STUPIDEST apologist argument I have ever heard. Why write the Essays then, NOTHING matters. Why teach ANY Mormon History? NOTHING matters. All the Mormon "prophets" can be racist assholes, as long as it is not the CURRENT ONE. Why? It doesn't MATTER. The Book of Mormon could have come from extraterrestrials. Who cares? It was a long time ago and DOESN'T MATTER. Why tell investigators about the claimed FIRST VISION? It just DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

What a crock of ____.

Denial and denial of denial are all they have left. Nothing matters but that the corporation continue. Truth, morality, humanity doesn't matter. The primacy of the league of lying preachers must be maintained. The spice of profitable gullibility must flow.

[_Maksutov]

The validity of yesterday's Church leaders has everything to do with the legitimacy of our current leaders. Would you argue otherwise, MG?

No.

Regards,
MG

Then present leaders should not invoke the authority of past leaders. But they do, constantly. So they are dishonest, then? Or are you just contradicting yourself again?

[_mentalgymnast]

I remember falling out of my chair when President Hinckley said this in the April 2007 General Conference:

How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith...

Wait... What? Isn't Joseph Smith a man? Wait... What? Isn't President Hinckley a prophet who knows for himself?

Legitimacy by proxy indeed.

Here is the complete talk so that others can look at this quote in context.

I confess that I do not know everything, but of some things I am certain. Of the things of which I know, I speak to you this morning.

https://www.LDS.org/general-conference/ ... w?lang=eng

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

Mcjathan's shared quote is pretty damning, MG. Trying to claim it's taken out of context doesn't address what it is saying. Mainly, that what Joseph Smith claimed to have seen makes sense to President Hinckley while the creeds of Christianity don't. He misses completely what mcjathan caught - that he is trading one person's word for anothers which he prefers.

The fact he prefaces his talk with the statement, "of the things of which I know, I speak to you this morning" doesn't justify any other idea than his and your knowledge is of the narrative Joseph Smith claimed to have experienced. It's not a way of saying he knows the nature of the Godhead from direct, personal experience with God and Jesus.

It's a pretty astounding comment that I'm surprised hasn't been someone's sig line before.

[_mentalgymnast]

Mcjathan's shared quote is pretty damning, MG. Trying to claim it's taken out of context doesn't address what it is saying. Mainly, that what Joseph Smith claimed to have seen makes sense to President Hinckley...

That is true.

...while the creeds of Christianity don't.

True also.

He misses completely what mcjathan caught...

I don't think Pres. Hinckley was 'missing' anything. His testimony was of his personal certainty of the work that came through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Another example of that testimony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noDM2zmNy2c

...that he is trading one person's word for anothers which he prefers.

You don't know what "he prefers".

The fact he prefaces his talk with the statement, "of the things of which I know, I speak to you this morning" doesn't justify any other idea than his and your knowledge is of the narrative Joseph Smith claimed to have experienced.

He has a personal witness that what Joseph Smith experienced indeed happened.

It's not a way of saying he knows the nature of the Godhead from direct, personal experience with God and Jesus.

We really don't know the depth and breadth of Pres. Hinckley's personal experience with the divine.

It's a pretty astounding comment that I'm surprised hasn't been someone's sig line before.

I think we have to take Pres. Hinckley's comments for what they are, not for what we think they should/ought to include.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

Exactly. And taking them for what they are is shocking. He is saying that the basis for his, the then-prophet of the restoration, testimony of the nature of God came from his belief in the story given from Joseph Smith. Not his own, personal experiences interfacing with God and Jesus.

Taking it at face value is what is crazy. It's deciding it "ought" to include something like his having some sort of special affirmation that is glossing over this difficulty.

ETA: As to inferring his preference from what he said -

It came to be known as the Nicene Creed, and its basic elements are recited by most of the Christian faithful.

Personally I cannot understand it. To me the creed is confusing.

How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith, who, while yet a boy, spoke with God the Eternal Father and His Beloved Son, the Risen Lord.

He basically said the first is confusing and he doesn't get it while he is grateful for the second. It's pretty clear using very elementary social skills that he has a preference and which of the two it is.

Why take issue with that?