Church goes after signingforsomething.com owner ...

[_The Nehor]

No, they often do not. It's a power thing.

Really, how many men in prominent positions in the Church do you know personally? I know several and they all take their responsibility very seriously and rely on God heavily to help them.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

by the way, if anyone is interested, Flatlander's local news channel did a story about him. The link is here:

http://new.khastv.com/modules/news/arti ... orytopic=4

There are also some quotes by Flatlander's bishop (a guy named Woodbury). Here's one with an interesting flub:

"The church does not have anything against gays and lesbians. We are a church that loves all people just like Jesus Christ loves all people. We believe that a family is between a man and a woman and is ordained by god. Anything contrary to that is sin," said Woodbury

So I guess this means an unmarried couple with children can 'be living in sin,' but which is not "contrary to sin," according to the good bishop? ;)

[_The Nehor]

No, they're not. The Church has revelation all the time. Just a few that are considered scripture. I've had many revelations in my life. I have only two that I wrote as they were said to me.

According to a GBH interview a few years ago, there is little need for more revelation because we already have a "great reservoir of revelation." In any event, the cessation of polygamy and priesthood ban were MONUMENTAL and certainly derserving of being written (especially when compared to BY's "revelation" about organizing wagon trains, which is still in the D&C).

I don't presume to dictate to God which revelations are required to be written as revelations and which canonized as revelatory changes. If you do, more power to you.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Really, how many men in prominent positions in the Church do you know personally? I know several and they all take their responsibility very seriously and rely on God heavily to help them.

My initial reference was to their not owning the Church, just like anyone else, including Flatlander.

As for men in prominent positions in the Church, I've known many (both general and local). And, yes, they take their jobs seriously and rely on God to help them -- the problem arises when they think God is always helping them and that their ecclesiastical decisions are "inspired" and, for lack of a better word, infallible, when they often are not. This essentially allows a man, in his own mind, to avoid blame or recrimination when he screws up. I consider this type of lack of accountability (which the belief in "discernment" and "inspiration," if taken to an extreme, can foster, in my opinion) as very dangerous.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I don't presume to dictate to God which revelations are required to be written as revelations and which canonized as revelatory changes. If you do, more power to you.

I dictate nothing. But I do wish the prophet would have dictated these revelations to his secretary, given their extraordinary importance.

[_The Nehor]

I don't presume to dictate to God which revelations are required to be written as revelations and which canonized as revelatory changes. If you do, more power to you.

I dictate nothing. But I do wish the prophet would have dictated these revelations to his secretary, given their extraordinary importance.

Why? You know they are there. What they said was announced before the whole Church (and the world).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Why? You know they are there. What they said was announced before the whole Church (and the world).

There is absolutely NO evidence that either revelation was written down (well, John Taylor's revelation that polygmay would nevert end, was written down, but it's not recognized as "official").

[_The Nehor]

Why? You know they are there. What they said was announced before the whole Church (and the world).

There is absolutely NO evidence that either revelation was written down (well, John Taylor's revelation that polygmay would nevert end, was written down, but it's not recognized as "official").

Most revelations ARE never written down. We don't have the revelation that led to the King Follett discourse or the one that started Work for the Dead or the one that changed how the Seventies operate.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Most revelations ARE never written down.

I submit that the 'biggies' are. And in the history of Mormondom, cessation of polygamy and the priesthood ban were as big as they come.

We don't have the revelation that led to the King Follett discourse or the one that started Work for the Dead or the one that changed how the Seventies operate.

The polygamy and priesthood ban, in light of how members held on to them no matter the cost, were bigger than any of these, in my opinion.

[_The Nehor]

Most revelations ARE never written down.

I submit that the 'biggies' are. And in the history of Mormondom, cessation of polygamy and the priesthood ban were as big as they come.

We don't have the revelation that led to the King Follett discourse or the one that started Work for the Dead or the one that changed how the Seventies operate.

The polygamy and priesthood ban, in light of how members held on to them no matter the cost, were bigger than any of these, in my opinion.

If the 'biggies' are and you contend that these are 'biggies' why weren't they written down? The two premises are contradictory. I submit that the first is flawed.