consiglieri wrote: You can read the minds of everybody who read the article?
Now that's pretty amazing; I have to hand it to you.
I am an amazing fellow that is for sure.
Tator wrote:Yes you are!!
You can divine the thoughts of the critics, apologists, the 11 witnesses, Washington Post reporters and readers and even porn stars...no one is beyond your thought reading abilities. You are amazing, you even threaten "peril", I mean great peril if anyone puts you on ignore. Believe me that threat has me shaking in my boots, I won't dare try that one.
Try it! You'll like it (I did/do.)
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
café crema wrote:So the LDS church hires for it's own university a man whose expertise is Doctrine of the Church. But he doesn't know the doctrine? Calls into question just what either institution knows about church doctrine, one can only hope (and I assume) they do a better job in the other areas taught at the universtity.
LOL.
This whole business of trying to deny all their doctrine is highly amusing.
In the end it just shows that not a single man in Mormonism is inspired nor lead by any kind of Deity. Every single prophet can be overridden by the next one. Maybe the Mormon Jesus needs to go dig up the urim thummim he took back - because he can't see crap for the future. He keeps giving his cronies the wrong information and he has to keep correcting himself year after year.
Mormonism: We stand for nothing but pay your tithing anyway.
This whole business of trying to deny all their doctrine is highly amusing.
The only people doing that appear to be some on the MDD with mod help. The Church itself merely denied Bott's speculations without specifying what those were. I would expect the Church to be quickly changing it's web site and online manuals if it were in the business of denial. Doesn't appear to be happening......
This whole business of trying to deny all their doctrine is highly amusing.
The only people doing that appear to be some on the MDD with mod help. The Church itself merely denied Bott's speculations without specifying what those were. I would expect the Church to be quickly changing it's web site and online manuals if it were in the business of denial. Doesn't appear to be happening......
Bc, what did Bott say that hadn't already been said by senior Church Leaders since the restoration?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Bc, what did Bott say that hadn't already been said by senior Church Leaders since the restoration?
He did indeed have some doctrine matching current up-to-date official publications mingled with his speculation. I'll leave that to the student. But if it's mingled with speculation, it's all speculation in context.
Bc, what did Bott say that hadn't already been said by senior Church Leaders since the restoration?
He did indeed have some doctrine matching current up-to-date official publications mingled with his speculation. I'll leave that to the student. But if it's mingled with speculation, it's all speculation in context.
I believe we should apply this standard to all books written by general authorities. The doctrine therein may be reclassified as speculation, both within their books and when expressed in material published by the church.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
