I find this bizzare, do you...?

[_Dr. Shades]

Yes; I too find it extremely bizarre. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

[_Shulem]

Thank Jezzus H. Christ that we have bcspace to tell us what the official duties of an apostle are.

How about -- preach!

How about -- make noise!

How about -- say prayers!

How about -- make love!

How about -- tell faithful stories!

How about -- hand out candy canes for Christmas!

Yeah -- Tommy-boy Monson leads the apostles! Give us a revelation Tommy. Prophesy old man! Say something that is going to come to pass so we can see if you really are a prophet. Cut off your arm and then heal it so we can see if you really have power.

In the name of William Schriverass, Amen.

Paul O

[_plunderpunk]

I was searching LDS.org for the role of an Apostle and this is what it said:

To continue reading about the role and description of Apostles, see the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company. (Its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) 

Why would the official website of the Church direct you to further reading on an important subject from a source that they say may not reflect the official position of the Church?

That's nuts.

Loophole. That's why. If there's one thing any church needs concerning their history is enough self decided room to wriggle out of it.

But, yeah. It's absolutely FAIL BLOG territory. Wild.

[_stemelbow]

My goodness folks. Talk about making mountains out of molehills. The concept of an apostle is defined often in LDS publications. Its easy to make a fuss about nothingness around here it seems.

I see it more along the lines of:

I have a book that I'd recommend someone read on the topic of Nicea. Its called When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstien. I recommend the book. I don't necessarily think its completely correct or exhaustive for that matter, but if you wish to learn more on the topic I recommend that book. Somehow recommending the book as a means to learn more on the topic suggests something negative about me, because I'm unwilling or unable to expand on the topic to the degree the book does.

Wowzers.

[_Some Schmo]

My goodness folks. Talk about making mountains out of molehills.

Yes yes, stem, we all know that massive incongruence is no big deal to you. We kind of figured that out when you first declared yourself TBM.

[_stemelbow]

massive incongruence

Surely you can see that I see it as more of a massive fail on the part of critics to make their case who perceive it as a massive incongruence? Indeed, apostle is defined in multiple places found on LDS.org, but to offer an interested reader another source to learn about the subject is somehow such a weird thing to do to you guys.

[_sock puppet]

massive incongruence

Surely you can see that I see it as more of a massive fail on the part of critics to make their case who perceive it as a massive incongruence? Indeed, apostle is defined in multiple places found on LDS.org, but to offer an interested reader another source to learn about the subject is somehow such a weird thing to do to you guys.

If LDS.org did not want to mislead the inquiring person, why did LDS.org then not limit its referrals to those official definitions?

Or, was LDS.org deferring that the definition is correctly fleshed out in an unofficial source?

[_stemelbow]

If LDS.org did not want to mislead the inquiring person, why did LDS.org then not limit its referrals to those official definitions?

Or, was LDS.org deferring that the definition is correctly fleshed out in an unofficial source?

I'm not sure the connection you think exists in offering a referral to interested parties to misleading people. The Church is merely suggesting its good to go out and learn, to read things and see what is discussed as ideas regarding the topic.

You guys tireless harp on silly things. This is a good example of that.

[_DarkHelmet]

The church learned long ago to never, ever, ever again take an official stand (in writing) on anything, at all. They have been burned way too many times. Verbally, in front of their members, they take official stands, but it is very risky to put their official stances in writing. They need to have the ability to change their mind and not have a documented record of it in anything that can be considered official doctrine.

[_Some Schmo]

The church learned long ago to never, ever, ever again take an official stand (in writing) on anything, at all. They have been burned way too many times. Verbally, in front of their members, they take official stands, but it is very risky to put their official stances in writing. They need to have the ability to change their mind and not have a documented record of it in anything that can be considered official doctrine.

In reality, there's only one doctrine the church is willing to commit to: pay your 10%.