DiscussMormonism.com

On the MDD board, they are discussing SSM, and the possibility of it ever being accepted in the church. California Boy suggested that since there isn't really an official revelation on it, there could conceivably be a revelation allowing it sometime in the future. This is Calmoriah's response:

CaliforniaBoy wrote:Do you ever wonder since there has been no modern revelation from God on this issue

Calmoriah wrote:I don't think this is an assumption that we should be making. It is quite possible in my opinion that modern revelation has been given to the prophet and apostles on how they should address the issue and they are doing exactly that. Simply because something has not be announced to the general membership does not mean there has not been revelation on it.

So are these imagined revelations that have not been announced considered official doctrine? BC Space?

So are these imagined revelations that have not been announced considered official doctrine? BC Space?

Not until published by the Church.

Calmoriah wrote:I don't think this is an assumption that we should be making. It is quite possible in my opinion that modern revelation has been given to the prophet and apostles on how they should address the issue and they are doing exactly that. Simply because something has not be announced to the general membership does not mean there has not been revelation on it.

Because the purpose of a prophet is to get revelations and then NOT tell them to people. I wish I had a mouthpiece/go-between that I could tell things to, so that he could keep it a secret from the people that he is supposed to relay messages to for me. The level of speculation on that board is astounding.

Calmoriah wrote:I don't think this is an assumption that we should be making. It is quite possible in my opinion that modern revelation has been given to the prophet and apostles on how they should address the issue and they are doing exactly that. Simply because something has not be announced to the general membership does not mean there has not been revelation on it.

[/quote]

That is absolute rubbish, not to mention false doctrine.

harmony wrote:

Calmoriah wrote:I don't think this is an assumption that we should be making. It is quite possible in my opinion that modern revelation has been given to the prophet and apostles on how they should address the issue and they are doing exactly that. Simply because something has not be announced to the general membership does not mean there has not been revelation on it.

That is absolute rubbish, not to mention false doctrine.

Agreed. Wow, I'm amazed someone could even believe some nonsense like that.

Tobin wrote:

harmony wrote:That is absolute rubbish, not to mention false doctrine.

Agreed. Wow, I'm amazed someone could even believe some nonsense like that.

We're still living with the initial ramifications of this sort of thing.

The missing revelation restoring the higher priesthood.

Joseph and Fanny... and the lateness of Sec 132.

The lack of revelation regarding blacks and the priesthood.

We have a history of this sort of leading the church astray from the highest levels. And it's pitifully clear why... calmoriah is not alone in her nondiscernment and misplaced trust of authority.

harmony wrote:We're still living with the initial ramifications of this sort of thing.
The missing revelation restoring the higher priesthood.
Joseph and Fanny... and the lateness of Sec 132.
The lack of revelation regarding blacks and the priesthood.
We have a history of this sort of leading the church astray from the highest levels. And it's pitifully clear why... calmoriah is not alone in her nondiscernment and misplaced trust of authority.

I wish members would spend more time learning the history of the Church, studying true doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and forego all the urban legends and nonsense that I often hear spoken from the pulpit in Church. This is precisely the reason I rarely stay after the sacrament because some benighted soul will get up and start spouting garbage like this and I just have to storm out because I can't take it.

Tobin wrote:I wish members would spend more time learning the history of the Church, studying true doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and forego all the urban legends and nonsense that I often hear spoken from the pulpit in Church. This is precisely the reason I rarely stay after the sacrament because some benighted soul will get up and start spouting garbage like this and I just have to storm out because I can't take it.

Yet according to Dan, it's the members' own fault that we are misinformed, clinging to foolishness and Paul H Dunn stories. That the church has never lied to us or hidden anything.

The nonsense that comes across my ward's pulpit is enough to gag a maggot... if the maggot had a brain. The physical agony attending church causes me is nothing compared to the mental agony of hearing things like... the church is true because just look at how many temples we have, and the millions of members. I'm sitting there thinking... have you ever seen the cathedrals of England? the Vatican? do you know how many Catholics there are? how many Muslims?

I may have seen you in the church parking lot...

Simply because something has not be announced to the general membership does not mean there has not been revelation on it.

That is absolute rubbish, not to mention false doctrine.

Not at all. Jesus himself spoke only to his apostles on occasion; admonishing them to tell no man. Christianity is full of esoteric doctrines, such as the LDS temple rites etc.

I may have seen you in the church parking lot...

Was I listening to the Cowboys game?

bcspace wrote:Not at all. Jesus himself spoke only to his apostles on occasion; admonishing them to tell no man. Christianity is full of esoteric doctrines, such as the LDS temple rites etc.

Those are not doctrine. We've already had that discussion.