DiscussMormonism.com

Chap wrote:
Look, when the Lord speaks to these guys and tells them what he wants them to say, he is only speaking as a Lord. Did we ever say he was perfect?

Oh, wait ...

Eternal progression. Even the Lord is still progressing. We can't expect him to be perfect.

all of this has me hoping packer finds the fountain of youth and gets to be president of that corporation. if he doesn't fire otterson on the first day, they are going to have a SAMCRO moment and one of them is going to get the metaphorical piney treatment in the cabin.

can you imagine the conversation when otterson suggests to packer that we shouldn't reverse the ban on blacks when we ban homos, feminist-sympathizers and bloggers from the priesthood, temple and celestial kingdom?

Church editors had suggested to the apostle that "referencing ‘some feminist thinkers’ would inevitably be read by many as ‘all feminist thinkers,’

Oh please. They have so little confidence in the reading comprehension of those who would read the talk that they think it is inevitable that "some" will be read as "all."

By this logic, when members covenant to give "all" to the church, they will inevitably think that they are only required to give "some."

If "some" is so easy to confuse with "all," then I guess you could say I attend "all" church meetings, keep "all" the commandments, and can answer "all" the temple recommend questions.

The lack of faith in the the ability of people to interpret words everyone of average intelligence has been able to distinguish since kindergarten (if not sooner) is laughable.

Bazooka wrote:Elder Robert D. Hales. General Conference, October 2013

These conferences are always under the direction of the Lord, guided by His Spirit.3 We are not assigned specific topics. Over weeks and months, often through sleepless nights, we wait upon the Lord. Through fasting, praying, studying, and pondering, we learn the message that He wants us to give.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... y?lang=eng

Channeling maklelan: Always doesn't always mean absolutely always. It's just rhetoric.

bcspace wrote:

I love how anonymous "church editors" have veto power over "inspired" prophetic utterances. Isn't it marvelous?

You've just committed the strawman that says the Lord controls the mouths of his apostles 24/7. Even BY wanted a chance to correct himself and in this case Christofferson made the call, a detail you intentionally left out in order to create a narrative that doesn't exist in reality.

That's a strawman perpetuated out of the mouths of those very apostles. They own it. So it is particularly hypocritical when they run from it.

But hey, let's not forget how far since 1978 they've run from and tried to distance the FP Statement of 8/17/1949 that the Lord commanded the ban against blacks having the priesthood.

Face it, bcspace, you've hitched the wagon of your life-long devotion to some duplicitous assholes.

Hey, now we're talking!

Peggy Fletcher Stack's Facebook wall wrote: Small twerk in an LDS General Conference talk.

https://www.Facebook.com/peggy.fletcher ... ion=stream




Whoops, my mistake.

Peggy Fletcher Stack's Facebook wall wrote: Small tweak in an LDS General Conference talk.

Equality wrote:Money quote:

Church editors had suggested to the apostle that "referencing ‘some feminist thinkers’ would inevitably be read by many as ‘all feminist thinkers,’ " Todd explained in a statement. "Elder Christofferson agreed and has simply clarified his intent."

I love how anonymous "church editors" have veto power over "inspired" prophetic utterances.

Hmm, who are these "Church editors" who can get an apostle to censor his own talk? I wonder if they comprise the same gang that makes up "President Newsroom."

by the way, in light of this boner (and the censorship of Pres. Packer's recent GC talk), wouldn't it make more sense for these "Church editors" to vet the GC talks BEFORE the Brethren publicly speak them, instead of the editors hustling to do "damage control" afterwards?

Rollo Tomasi wrote:by the way, in light of this boner (and the censorship of Pres. Packer's recent GC talk), wouldn't it make more sense for these "Church editors" to vet the GC talks BEFORE the Brethren publicly speak them, instead of the editors hustling to do "damage control" afterwards?

the fact that they do these edits after suggests that the public reaction of church critics is a major factor in the process.

palerobber wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:by the way, in light of this boner (and the censorship of Pres. Packer's recent GC talk), wouldn't it make more sense for these "Church editors" to vet the GC talks BEFORE the Brethren publicly speak them, instead of the editors hustling to do "damage control" afterwards?

the fact that they do these edits after suggests that the public reaction of church critics is a major factor in the process.

But Big E/Little J should foresee the public reaction and let the editors know ahead of time what to edit out.