Frodo wrote:Thank you for that link. This is Snow's comment "...and understand that those answers have been approved by the presiding brethren of the church". Although this is better, I am still left to wonder why there is not and explicit statement by the prophet on this web page stating his approval? Just who are the "presiding brethren". Maybe I am being too critical. Maybe the presiding brethren includes the prophet. Or maybe it is someone lower. If it is the prophet why just not say it. In circumstances like these the church uses it's words very carefully.
I guess I just need to be comforted that I should just understand by his words (snow) that the prophet stands behind these remarks.
It seems that presented in this manner, it will be easier to disavow this article in the future.
I guess in thinking about it if I were the prophet I might be a little embarrassed to say that I just did not know why the ban was in effect.
In the video, Steven Snow said that the articles were submitted to the Twelve and the First Presidency for approval and then published in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org. Is that not clear enough? Are you suggesting that the church is in such organizational disarray that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing?
Tim the Enchanter wrote:In the video, Steven Snow said that the articles were submitted to the Twelve and the First Presidency for approval and then published in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org. Is that not clear enough? Are you suggesting that the church is in such organizational disarray that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing?
While Snow does make it clear in the video, I do think they should put the notice of the approval with the individual articles, specifically the new ones. With notice of approval by the first presidency or quorum of the 12 apostles appearing directly above or below each article.
Currently yes you can put two and two together, but it should be clear and unambiguous.
I say that because I can already imagine an apologist trying to disassociate the articles from the first presidency. Arguing that you don't know for sure that they approved that specific article or how thorough the review process was. I'm sure it will happen someday.
I have made no mention of disarray. Although if you want to see some disarray in action we might look at the events of the Sweden Rescue.
I have thanked you for drawing my attention to Snow's video. As I said this helps a little, but for me it still falls short.
We have an official First Presidency letter from a past presidency stating they did know why the ban was in place. Now we have Snow vouching for the First Presidency's approval of an an anonymous article which says they were wrong. This is a very important announcement. Why is the prophet not coming forward himself, or at least directly approving this article. Could it possibly be that this article itself throws previous prophets under the bus.
I also see the approval method of this article as leaving the back door open when they need to disavow this information.
They are not anonymous articles. They are published by the Church. The Church is in the hands of the First Presidency.
Who are just speaking their opinions. They've received no revelation on this matter so to "disavow" previously established explanations that could very well be true, is pretty stupid and obviously a business decision to lure in more blacks, I mean tithe payers.
They are not anonymous articles. They are published by the Church. The Church is in the hands of the First Presidency.
The cowardly First Presidency is undoubtedly overwheled with the situation and have simply employed apologists to spin statements and see how they go. The Presidency has said nothing. The document is not signed by the First Presidency and is not offical. It's just an article on the church website just like there are articles in the church news paper and magazines. It's all just church members talking about how they see things.
When the First Presidency steps foward and produces a real document, they will sign it with their names and then we will go from there to tear it apart and continue to make your goddamn church look like the racist black-hating cult it is!
I want to see your church crumble to the dust and the membes leave it in droves. I want to see your church taxed and your First Presidency hauled into a court of law for child abuse and jailed for their crimes. I want to see your temples sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds given to those whom the church harmed. I want all work for the dead to cease!
Sammy Jankins wrote:I say that because I can already imagine an apologist trying to disassociate the articles from the first presidency. Arguing that you don't know for sure that they approved that specific article or how thorough the review process was. I'm sure it will happen someday.
Frodo wrote:I also see the approval method of this article as leaving the back door open when they need to disavow this information.
Having Thomas Monson say, "I'm Thomas Monson and I approve this message" would put a nice little bow on it, but come on, in an organization as hierarchical as the Mormon church and with the church historian saying that the 12 and FP approved it, is there really any plausible deniability here? If Steven Snow was speaking out of turn and the 12 and FP didn't want their stamp of approval on these new essays, he should get the axe along with the other rogues who allowed Steven Snow to get the video up on LDS.org. Is Steven Snow going to be thrown under the bus in the future? "He was just the church historian, he didn't know what he was talking about when he said the 12 and FP approved those essays." What a joke. Who does the Church Historian report to? I'm guessing he reports to the 12. If the 12 and FP allowed Steven Snow to say what he said in that video with the intention of leaving room for plausible deniability, that's cowardly and duplicitous.
Frodo wrote:Sammy has just stated my position very well.
I have made no mention of disarray. Although if you want to see some disarray in action we might look at the events of the Sweden Rescue.
I have thanked you for drawing my attention to Snow's video. As I said this helps a little, but for me it still falls short.
We have an official First Presidency letter from a past presidency stating they did know why the ban was in place. Now we have Snow vouching for the First Presidency's approval of an an anonymous article which says they were wrong. This is a very important announcement. Why is the prophet not coming forward himself, or at least directly approving this article. Could it possibly be that this article itself throws previous prophets under the bus.
I also see the approval method of this article as leaving the back door open when they need to disavow this information.
Frodo, do you believe that it is possible for 'stuff' to be published on LDS.org, Deseret News, Mormon Newsroom etc without First Presidency approval? Can you give any examples where this has been seen to be the case?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)