DiscussMormonism.com

Oh, I forget that LDSfaqs has me on ignore. He won't even read this.

Oh well. This whole topic, from Bednar's quote to the 14 F's teachings of the prophets blows.

zeezrom wrote:I'm with LDSFacts on this one. The prophets really do speak scripture.

Would the heated discussion within the Quorum, therefore, be considered akin to a council of Gods debate?

moksha wrote:

zeezrom wrote:I'm with LDSFacts on this one. The prophets really do speak scripture.

Would the heated discussion within the Quorum, therefore, be considered akin to a council of Gods debate?

Sure....

cwald wrote:1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.

5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.

7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.

11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

LDSfaqs, please don't put the prophets in a box. You may want to reflect on your current beliefs and testimony? It appears as if you are directly contradicting the Mormon Prophet Ezra Benson's counsel and directives. Perhaps you may need to turn in your temple recommend until you've humbled yourself and accept the words of the modern day prophets as outlined in the 14 F's of the Prophets. Thanks.

Actually, you're putting the Prophets in in a "box".....
Nothing Benson said is false, nor contradicts what I've stated.
You're putting those statements in a box as if they are the "end all" to how Doctrine of the Church is determined, when all they are in fact doing is speaking some of a Prophets role.... They aren't even addressing doctrine of the Church, save as related to the Prophets role.

Classic example of how the anti-mormon uses a little truth to lie.
When are you guys going to stop lying? When are you going to stop your cherry picking of something, and then pretending it's the END ALL word on the subject in question?

He's speaking of Prophets..... Tell me again how he's addressing "Doctrine"? He's not. So stop your misrepresenting and perverting things so you can attack.

Hi LDSfaqs. Thanks for replying.

I'm saying that Bednar can say anything he wants, and he can considered and teach it as scripture and doctrine because of the 14 F's of the prophet doctrine. And if one disagrees, they would be in apostasy.

Do we agree?

Example. If one disagreed with rational of the priesthood ban in 1977, he could lose his TR and be subject to church discipline for not following the principles listed in the 14 Fs.

cwald wrote:Hi LDSfaqs. Thanks for replying.

I'm saying that Bednar can say anything he wants, and he can considered and teach it as scripture and doctrine because of the 14 F's of the prophet doctrine. And if one disagrees, they would be in apostasy.

Do we agree?

Example. If one disagreed with rational of the priesthood ban in 1977, he could lose his TR and be subject to church discipline for not following the principles listed in the 14 Fs.

1. Again, not everything in scripture is "doctrine", thus, just because Bednar might say something, doesn't automatically make it doctrine, PERIOD.
It's simply not how the church works.
Doctrine in the Church is determined by the Prophets, Scripture, Holy Ghost, and Common Consent, PERIOD.
A scripture saying something doesn't automatically make doctrine, a Prophet saying something doesn't automatically make doctrine, Spiritual Impressions saying something to a person/prophet doesn't automatically make Doctrine, nor does majority rule make doctrine.

Is this that hard to understand?

2. Simply not true.... The 14 points don't even say what you're claiming they say. It also doesn't say anything about anyone being in apostasy because a Prophet says something and the Church or members don't agree. Joseph Smith once tried to get rid of one of his Councelors, and the Church voted against it. So tell me, were all the Saints in Apostasy when they didn't agree with Joseph? Nope.

I knew many people who didn't agree with ALL of the reasonings for the Priesthood ban, yet every one including me were not in Apostasy.
Right now, the Church has an Official Policy that to be baptized etc. one cannot be "cohabitating" with someone. In other words, which means someone cannot be shacking up with someone as if married, in a relationship etc., because obviously such would be sin. That's the actual policy. The church also had a "practice" and tradition that encoraged people of the opposite sex to not live under the same roof. However, there is no policy stating that. Yet, somewhere in history, church leaders combined the Official Policy with the unofficial practice as being and meaning the exact same thing, as if the practice also means the official policy. But, the policy states cohabitate, which has a clear definition, and NEVER has meant simply living under the same roof. Yet, my local church leaders are ALL interpreting it that way. Am I in apostasy? To my stake missionary's I'm not being obedient, bless them but they are ignorant, yet I'm in compliance with the rule, even though I don't agree with it. I'm actually going to have to appeal it and explain the issue to the Apostles.

3. No we don't agree at all.

4. No he wouldn't. You might only be in apostasy if you start to preach against the Church etc. concerning the OFFICIAL Policy (not any of the theory's some expressed). Even then, I don't think the Church can claim you are in Apostasy, because Policy's are not the same thing as Doctrines. Policy's are generally based on doctrine, but a policy itself is not the "Gospel". One can only be in apostasy if they aren't following the Gospel.
But, you are actually mixing issues. Official Policy of the Church is not the "Prophet". Yes, they have the final say on policy, but still.

5. The 14 points are pretty "generic".... I mean, in a general sense sure, if one doesn't follow one of the "points", one could be in some degree of apostasy. But we aren't talking about the points, we are talking about specifics and details.

Again, anything a Prophet says must be backed up by the 3 other checks and balances of the Government of God.
The Saints were always free to believe what they wanted concerning the ban. Most Saints including the Apostles themselves wished it wasn't there, and was hoping for the day it would be removed. There's a difference between contending against something, and disagreeing with it, or believing something different about it. Contending against the Church like the recent liberal Feminist, is different from simply believing women should also have the Priesthood. One would be official apostasy, the other not.

by the way, President Kimballs brother used to Home Teach me when I was young. He was an amazingly righteous and good man, much like his brother.

whoa, hold up a minute , f*cksie, what's going on here?

ldsfaqs wrote:I knew many people who didn't agree with ALL of the reasonings for the Priesthood ban, yet every one including me were not in Apostasy.
Right now, the Church has an Official Policy that to be baptized etc. one cannot be "cohabitating" with someone. In other words, which means someone cannot be shacking up with someone as if married, in a relationship etc., because obviously such would be sin. That's the actual policy. The church also had a "practice" and tradition that encoraged people of the opposite sex to not live under the same roof. However, there is no policy stating that. Yet, somewhere in history, church leaders combined the Official Policy with the unofficial practice as being and meaning the exact same thing, as if the practice also means the official policy. But, the policy states cohabitate, which has a clear definition, and NEVER has meant simply living under the same roof. Yet, my local church leaders are ALL interpreting it that way. Am I in apostasy? To my stake missionary's I'm not being obedient, bless them but they are ignorant, yet I'm in compliance with the rule, even though I don't agree with it. I'm actually going to have to appeal it and explain the issue to the Apostles.

Are you shacking up with someone?!? You dog, you!!!

ldsfaqs wrote:Do you people have anything actually "constructive", reasoned, objective, or just anything showing intelligence, to say about my post or about the subject? Nope, you never do.

You all questioned Bednar's "claimed" comment, so I explained it.
But, let's attack the so-called moron LDSfaqs.

I don't believe anyone here ever fully reads your posts. It's like trying to have a conversation with one of those mentally ill street bums on my mission. They go on and on about nothing and it's just a waste of time. Plus, I really don't think most of the people on this forum have all of the free time that you obviously do to respond to ALL of your nonsense.

ldsfaqs wrote:1. As I mentioned, there are many examples of Apostles of the New Testament and Prophets of the Old Testament "speaking as men".
It's not a "new" concept as anti-mormons like to believe so they can degrade the Church.

The Church has always had it's official doctrines, theology, and practices.
And men being men sometimes say things false, or less than accurate.
Words of the Prophets have always been weighed against the Scriptures, Holy Spirit, and Common Consent.
And they always must conform to the 4 aspects I listed above.

"I spoke as a man before I spoke as a prophet...or was it that I spoke as a prophet before I spoke as a man? Anywho, as pickles are cucumbers may become and as prophetic words are, words of man they may become...so that the servants of the pickle may always have wiggle room for the pickle and his servants!

Damned be the cucumber that speaks out of turn, unless he repents and serves the pickle!
Amen." --Elder Bednar probably.

Lemmie wrote:whoa, hold up a minute , f*cksie, what's going on here?

ldsfaqs wrote:I knew many people who didn't agree with ALL of the reasonings for the Priesthood ban, yet every one including me were not in Apostasy.
Right now, the Church has an Official Policy that to be baptized etc. one cannot be "cohabitating" with someone. In other words, which means someone cannot be shacking up with someone as if married, in a relationship etc., because obviously such would be sin. That's the actual policy. The church also had a "practice" and tradition that encoraged people of the opposite sex to not live under the same roof. However, there is no policy stating that. Yet, somewhere in history, church leaders combined the Official Policy with the unofficial practice as being and meaning the exact same thing, as if the practice also means the official policy. But, the policy states cohabitate, which has a clear definition, and NEVER has meant simply living under the same roof. Yet, my local church leaders are ALL interpreting it that way. Am I in apostasy? To my stake missionary's I'm not being obedient, bless them but they are ignorant, yet I'm in compliance with the rule, even though I don't agree with it. I'm actually going to have to appeal it and explain the issue to the Apostles.

Are you shacking up with someone?!? You dog, you!!!

No, you likely missed recent events.....
My ex-wife had finally repented some to be willing to have me come home and live in the home to be there for the kids and the family, but her and I still remain completely separate, emotionally and physically. We would be free to date, etc. Basically, I would just be a maid and caregiver, but I would at least be able to be there for my family.

The Church said we would not be able to get Temple recommends or lose them if we did this.
However, the official policy doesn't say "living under the same roof is banned", it says "cohabitating" is banned.
Somewhere along the line, leadership has placed a "practice" of recommending against and restricting people living under the same roof onto the official policy making it actually the same thing.

I had been seeing my stake missionary's every week, they are members who are very good and faithful, but not very educated in the intellectual church issue sense, so when I mentioned my disagreement with the Pharisaical enforcement and misinterpretation (at least in my view) of this policy, they decided I was attacking the Church, not being obedient, etc. It didn't end well. It was very disappointing. I should have realized that I couldn't talk about such things to them.

Anyway, what I thought was a blessing, God finally helping my family, my being able to save myself but especially my children (because they are out of time), ended up yet again being taken away from me, instead of my ex doing it per-se this time, the Church did it. So, I'm going to have to fight this taking it up the line, and in the mean-time my children suffer for it, because they really need me, and I them.
Joy and gratitude to God then went to sorrow that the Church would place a policy above family and the needs of the children and me.
There is no chance of us "sinning" for example, so it would be no different than if I was a maid and providing child care.
Even still, since when was Christ in the Business of Punishing people for what "could" happen, even though it really couldn't with my character???

Sad thing is, because of it the ex reverted to her old mistreatment, so now I have to deal with that also.