Helen Whitney and the Princeton panel presentation

[_guy sajer]

Ask and you can get a straightforward answer on any question you have.

Was God once a man?

Yes. But while we accept that, we don't teach about His mortal existence because we don't know anything about it.

His name in mortality was Lance Goodbottom. He lived on the planet called Domnato. Lance was an patent attorney, but a very righteous one. He had 7 children and four wives, though Betsy was his favorite (and has mothered his most important spiriti children). Lance had many trials (including losing his car keys once), but his God (Jeboza) answered his prayer and led him to his keys. This transforming event changed his life, and he vowed to devote his entire life to God. He was as good as his word, being called to many leadership positions in his Church (called the Kodo Church, after the ancient prophet Kodo). He rarely saw his family, ignored his wives, but served dilligently.

He received his second annointing when he was 64 one day when he was attending to the call of nature. He died at the age of 83, beloved by his many children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

I've received this through revelation, so who can doubt it?

[_charity]

My answers, as I understand the answers, in bold.

Ask and you can get a straightforward answer on any question you have

Did Joseph Smith lie about his polygamy?

When God had told Joseph not to tell anyone about the newly revealed doctrine, and he was backed into a corner between answering and obeying God, he chose to obey God. Which is considered a lie by those who don't understand the requirement to obey God first.
When did the distinction between doctrine and "official" doctrine enter the fray?

It didn't.

What should non-Momrons believe the President of the Church receives real revelation?

Huh? I think you left out a word, but I don't want to mind read. So please supply.
What revelations has Hinckley received? Expanding the temple building. Hunter? The need to prepare the people for the expansion of the temple building program. Benson? Has to be the condemnation of the Church because of a failure to read the Book of Mormon.

When a prophet claims to receive truths by divine revelation, does that make it doctrinally true? Doesn't have to. Not all truths are doctrine.

Does it make it officially true? Can it be doctrinally true yet not necessarily officially true?
What is your definition of "officially?" And what is the important distinction to you before I can answer.

I look forward to your straightforward answers.

There they are. But please, don't hold me accountable for your typos. And when I get your clarification on the defintions you are using I can answer the other questions.

[_dartagnan]

When God had told Joseph not to tell anyone about the newly revealed doctrine, and he was backed into a corner between answering and obeying God, he chose to obey God.

I didn't ask for apologetic rationalizations and excuse making. I asked for a straightforward answer. Did Joseph Smith lie? The answer that escapes you is YES, he LIED. Period. That makes him dishonest by any non-LDS standard. You reject that conclusion because you've concocted this apologetic two-step that applies a double-standard to LDS leaders when they act immorally, but can you at least acknowledge that non-LDS have no reason to give special treatment to them?

Which is considered a lie by those who don't understand the requirement to obey God first.

So in other words, lies are acceptable when LDS leaders get caught with their pants down. But it isn't just that he lied. It is the fact that he actively tried to belittle those who uncovered the lie. He promoted violence to destroy the Expositor which revealed the lie. It is the same process that goes on today in the Church. Except now you're violent with rhetoric and belittling of anyone who speaks up and protests the immorality of it all, by declaring them "apostate" and leaving it at that.

Also, I believe Hinckley willfully lied to Larry King, and this is supported by his past comments about the doctrine he said he didn't know if we taught.

When did the distinction between doctrine and "official" doctrine enter the fray?

It didn't.

So the hundreds of instances when we're told "that's not official doctrine," these apologists are wrong?

What should non-Momrons believe the President of the Church receives real revelation?

Huh? I think you left out a word, but I don't want to mind read. So please supply.

Why should non-Mormons believe the President of the Church receives real revelation when past revelation has been completely rejected as opinion?

What revelations has Hinckley received? Expanding the temple building.

That is not revelation. That is nothing more than the equivalent of a politician passing a law to build new roads or what not. Was the two billion from tithe dollars that was spent on a shopping mall also due to his revelatory abilities?

Hunter? The need to prepare the people for the expansion of the temple building program

Oh, and that is supposed to be news? Again, this is just your typical policy changes or mission statements that any new CEO would like to be known for. There is no reason to believe God had a hand in any of this.

Benson? Has to be the condemnation of the Church because of a failure to read the Book of Mormon.

Oh? So this is all he could come up with? Something so obtuse that it cannot possibly be tested for inspiration. "You're not reading the scriptures enough." Wow, like we really need a prophet to tell us that?

When a prophet claims to receive truths by divine revelation, does that make it doctrinally true? Doesn't have to. Not all truths are doctrine.

Well, you don't understand what doctrine is. Doctrine is teaching and when the President of any organization, especially a religious organization, declares a truth to be truth straight from God, it becomes doctrine by default. Again, how do I know something is doctrine when I cannot trust the revelations by modern prophets? WHen Brigham Young says he has it from God that Adam is the Father of our spirits. When Joseph Smith says he has it from God that Rev 1:6 teaches us that God teh Father has a Father.

Does it make it officially true? Can it be doctrinally true yet not necessarily officially true?
What is your definition of "officially?" And what is the important distinction to you before I can answer.

Ask the apologists like bcspace who keep rejecting the brunt of criticisms because virtually nothing criticized can be tied down to "official" doctrine.

[_charity]

Response to dartagnan.

I thought you couldn't handle the straightforward answers and had to weasle and sidestep. Does that make me a prophet? Or prophetess?

[_truth dancer]

Charity...

Do you understand YOUR answers are just YOUR personal opinion on the topic? Not in any way representative of what may or may not be official doctrine of the LDS church? That other believing members may have completely different opinions on what is or is not doctrine?



~dancer~

[_skippy the dead]

Response to dartagnan.

I thought you couldn't handle the straightforward answers and had to weasle and sidestep. Does that make me a prophet? Or prophetess?

With all due respect and appreciation for your willingness to offer to answer the "hard" questions, I'd rather see a church authority try to answer them when asked. You are not in a position to provide official responses - anything you say is an interpretation of what you've heard from various sources.

And, unfortunately in this case, any answers you attempt to provide aren't going to satisfy the questioners here anyway.

[_charity]

Response to dartagnan.

I thought you couldn't handle the straightforward answers and had to weasle and sidestep. Does that make me a prophet? Or prophetess?

With all due respect and appreciation for your willingness to offer to answer the "hard" questions, I'd rather see a church authority try to answer them when asked. You are not in a position to provide official responses - anything you say is an interpretation of what you've heard from various sources.

And, unfortunately in this case, any answers you attempt to provide aren't going to satisfy the questioners here anyway.

Charity...

Do you understand YOUR answers are just YOUR personal opinion on the topic? Not in any way representative of what may or may not be official doctrine of the LDS church? That other believing members may have completely different opinions on what is or is not doctrine?

Of course, I understand that. And it is the first line defense of the critics and anti-Mormons. "Well, you aren't official. I want to hear the answer to my picky little nothing question directly from the Prophet." Well, folks the Prophet isn't going to answer your picky little questions. That isn't the job of the Prophet. Threefold mission of the Church.

In the past, general authorities and propehts have done that. I have a letter in my files from the prophet at the time, Joseph Fielding Smith, in answer to my question about hymn selection. That was in a different time. This is MediaCircusVille. Just as Kevin illustrated so brilliantly, the populace demands only "yes or no" or one word answers. Those with the attention span of a small rodent can't handle a discourse on deep doctrine. And no, I didn't just say that Kevin has the attention span of a gerbil. POPULACE. And I hold Sesame Street responsible for t his.

[_truth dancer]

Of course, I understand that. And it is the first line defense of the critics and anti-Mormons. "Well, you aren't official. I want to hear the answer to my picky little nothing question directly from the Prophet." Well, folks the Prophet isn't going to answer your picky little questions. That isn't the job of the Prophet. Threefold mission of the Church.

Exactly!

This is exactly what the assertion is, (except for the picky part).

No one can tell anyone what is or is not official doctrine.

I personally do not see how official doctrine from God, upon which God's church is established is viewed as "picky little nothing questions." Be that as it may, there is little hope of knowing what is or is not doctrine in the LDS church as was pointed out in the clip.

~dancer~

[_charity]

Of course, I understand that. And it is the first line defense of the critics and anti-Mormons. "Well, you aren't official. I want to hear the answer to my picky little nothing question directly from the Prophet." Well, folks the Prophet isn't going to answer your picky little questions. That isn't the job of the Prophet. Threefold mission of the Church.

Exactly!

This is exactly what the assertion is, (except for the picky part).

No one can tell anyone what is or is not official doctrine.

I personally do not see how official doctrine from God, upon which God's church is established is viewed as "picky little nothing questions." Be that as it may, there is little hope of knowing what is or is not doctrine in the LDS church as was pointed out in the clip.

~dancer~

TD, the Church is about salvation. It isn't about LDS Trivia The Home Game. That's what those questions are. I haven't seen any questions by critics that impact salvific doctrines of the Church. Now, if Kevin is going to include anything that any leader of the Church has ever said (taught) which has nothing to do with his salvation, he is going to stay lost in the fog in his own mind.

[_skippy the dead]

Response to dartagnan.

I thought you couldn't handle the straightforward answers and had to weasle and sidestep. Does that make me a prophet? Or prophetess?

With all due respect and appreciation for your willingness to offer to answer the "hard" questions, I'd rather see a church authority try to answer them when asked. You are not in a position to provide official responses - anything you say is an interpretation of what you've heard from various sources.

And, unfortunately in this case, any answers you attempt to provide aren't going to satisfy the questioners here anyway.

Charity...

Do you understand YOUR answers are just YOUR personal opinion on the topic? Not in any way representative of what may or may not be official doctrine of the LDS church? That other believing members may have completely different opinions on what is or is not doctrine?

Of course, I understand that. And it is the first line defense of the critics and anti-Mormons. "Well, you aren't official. I want to hear the answer to my picky little nothing question directly from the Prophet." Well, folks the Prophet isn't going to answer your picky little questions. That isn't the job of the Prophet. Threefold mission of the Church.

In the past, general authorities and propehts have done that. I have a letter in my files from the prophet at the time, Joseph Fielding Smith, in answer to my question about hymn selection. That was in a different time. This is MediaCircusVille. Just as Kevin illustrated so brilliantly, the populace demands only "yes or no" or one word answers. Those with the attention span of a small rodent can't handle a discourse on deep doctrine. And no, I didn't just say that Kevin has the attention span of a gerbil. POPULACE. And I hold Sesame Street responsible for t his.

I didn't mean to imply that your answers weren't sufficient or welcome; I was actually addressing my comments more to the underlying idea of the original post - namely that the church itself, in its official capacity in providing responses or representing itself to the general public, does not generally provide direct responses. What I was trying to convey (badly) was that your answers don't satisfy the general desire for the leaders of the church themselves to provide the hard answers (addressing the "rough edges" as it were). And I don't expect the general authorities to come to this board to answer folks' questions (their "picky little nothing questions" in your snarky terms) - that was kind of my (badly made) point. Hopefully I'm a little more clear on what I'm trying to say.