NOT Official

[_bcspace]

Bumping this to see if bcspace will man up or not. :)

Answered long ago. When you're ready to address it, let me know.

[_Themis]

Bumping this to see if bcspace will man up or not. :)

Answered long ago. When you're ready to address it, let me know.

You're not fooling anyone. You could easily show us right now, but you know you can't, because it's not there. LOL

[_bcspace]

Answered long ago. When you're ready to address it, let me know.

You're not fooling anyone. You could easily show us right now, but you know you can't, because it's not there.

Which simply means you are too afraid to address the answer I gave. Liz understood it, so did brade though he can't accept it because it destroys his attempt to blur the lines of doctrine.

[_Themis]

Which simply means you are too afraid to address the answer I gave. Liz understood it, so did brade though he can't accept it because it destroys his attempt to blur the lines of doctrine.

Where? Why not just post it here. If Brade accepted it why does he continue to ask. Again, if you truly think you have answered it then you would have no problem producing that answer here. We both know you won''t. LOL

[_Nightlion]

Okay let's see then:
Doctrine and Covenants 107:91-92
91 And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—
92 Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.

For the interpretations of the prophets to be valid they must be found magnifying their duty. Apostles must actually accomplish the apostolic witness between them and Christ by obtaining the apostolic revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost or they have not learned their duty. And the President of the High Priesthood MUST obtain EVERY gift like unto Moses or he is not found worthy to stand and must be counted slothful in his duty. How can the Church rely upon such unaccomplished and hence unapproved prophets and apostles for correct scriptural interpretations when they are unworthy to stand in their office?

Doctrine and Covenants 107:99-100
99 Wherefore, now let every man learn his duty, and to act in the office in which he is appointed, in all diligence.
100 He that is slothful shall not be counted worthy to stand, and he that learns not his duty and shows himself not approved shall not be counted worthy to stand. Even so. Amen.

Such need to be removed by the common council of the Church. I would suggest giving everyone called as a Seventy or Apostle three years to learn his duty and obtain the gifts of his high calling. Any who fail should be dismissed. If a quorum manages to be kept you at least will have a real prophet in line for the next succession to the President of the High Priesthood and one likely to perhaps obtain all the gifts of God to stand rightly in that office. Give him a year perhaps.

By adherence to what Christ actually commanded in his revelations of the Restoration the LDS could have relied upon Young and Taylor and Woodruff and the rest. But even Brigham failed to show himself to have learned his duty. Downhill since. Sad. If any previous prophet was true there is no way his words could be counted less than scripture. Joseph's were when he was moved upon by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Any prophet of God who fails to ever speak by the power of the Holy Ghost should not be counted worthy to stand in his office. I think that is obvious. Sad again but obvious.

The answer is painful but once true prophets teach the people then real saints will arise among the young members who will grow up to become true apostles and prophets. So long as corruption is taught no true apostles or prophets will emerge. Because they are not taught to get the Spirit. And that has been the case for at least 100 years. JFS being the last prophet to magnify his office with an actual revelation by the gift and power of God. In fact I think he was the only one other than Joseph Smith to do so. I am still trying to figure how Brigham Young managed D&C 136. It starts off sounding like him giving orders but finishes up nicely. Even an accurate prediction of the US Civil War that came very speedily indeed. Makes me think Brigham might have added his own directions to a Joseph Smith revelation. Brigham is problematic and an iffy saint. I guess that's a derail.

[_brade]

Bumping this to see if bcspace will man up or not. :)

Answered long ago. When you're ready to address it, let me know.

Again, bcspace, you haven't answered it. You've given two citations for the view you attribute to the Church, remember? They're in that other thread. Do you really want to go through all this again? Neither one implies that everything in Church publications is official doctrine. You're either playing games (i.e. trolling) or you have inadequate reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

I'm sure most people around here followed the other thread. We all know you haven't answered the question adequately. You're not fooling anyone here.

Which simply means you are too afraid to address the answer I gave. Liz understood it, so did brade though he can't accept it because it destroys his attempt to blur the lines of doctrine.

Yes, I do understand the meaning of the view you attribute to the Church. So, thanks for giving me that much. But I've shown that neither bit of evidence you've offered supports the view you attribute to the Church. Finally, I'm not trying to blur the lines of doctrine. In an odd twist of fate, I'm trying to save the Church from absurdity. The view you attribute to the Church is both unsupported by the evidence you've offered for it, and utterly absurd on its face.

[_Themis]

Finally, I'm not trying to blur the lines of doctrine. In an odd twist of fate, I'm trying to save the Church from absurdity. The view you attribute to the Church is both unsupported by the evidence you've offered for it, and utterly absurd on its face.

No kidding. This issue really has nothing to do with the church being true or not. It really has to do with an assertion one member wants to hold the church to, but can't back it up.

[_bcspace]

Where?

Official doctrine thread. Recently in the CK forum. Several other places.

Why not just post it here.

Because you're intentionally claiming I never did even when back on the Official Doctrine thread I pointed it out to you several times.

When you're ready let me know.

[_Drifting]

Hi bcspace, still tending your herd I see....

[_Themis]

Where?

Official doctrine thread. Recently in the CK forum. Several other places.

Why not just post it here.

Because you're intentionally claiming I never did even when back on the Official Doctrine thread I pointed it out to you several times.

When you're ready let me know.

Then post it here. Seems simple enough if you really had, which we both know is not true. Still waiting.