Question about LDS Church after Smith's death.

[colton]

Now that's not to say there aren't prophets, but it depends on how you define it. Most prophecy in the Bible was forth telling, not fore telling, as in affirming God's Word. I do believe that happens.

That's interesting. That's probably how most LDS also view it, although I haven't heard that term before (at least not recently). Our church leaders, which we view as prophets, typically don't predict the future (except I suppose in general ways), but rather they testify to God's Word and give us counsel/advice on how it should be applied in our lives today.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I never said God stopped speaking to people via the HS. I said I didn't believe there will be any new revelation. Could there be? Sure, I'm not going to claim I'm 100% doctrinally sound. I just don't think we have people going around making prophecies, nor do we need one person in charge of a religion. I mean, I don't think much of the Pope at all.

But basically what I'm getting at is that to be an actual prophet that gives prophecies from God, you have to be 100% perfect in your prophecy. I do not believe we have seen that in recent times.

I guess I should ask, what do you consider revelation?

 

[RandyForRubio]

I guess I should ask, what do you consider revelation?

New edicts, laws, etc.

For example, I don't expect that in 10 years we'll get a new revelation that homosexuality is ok, just because it's popular.

 

[Bronco70]

I guess I should ask, what do you consider revelation?

New edicts, laws, etc.

For example, I don't expect that in 10 years we'll get a new revelation that homosexuality is ok, just because it's popular.

I've found it interesting that General Conferences often have "themes" - that is to say, recurring visits to a particular topic. It's seems to me that these "themes" are, a goodly portion of the time, not something that is being generally discussed in the church, but warrants dialogue.

To me, this seems like revelation. A bunch of old white dudes know what the membership needs to hear. I realize you could argue that it's just a case of "whatever the bretheren deem important becomes important to the membership", but I don't see it that way. And I'm a pretty sketchy mormon.

 

[babe]

I've found it interesting that General Conferences often have "themes" - that is to say, recurring visits to a particular topic. It's seems to me that these "themes" are, a goodly portion of the time, not something that is being generally discussed in the church, but warrants dialogue.

To me, this seems like revelation. A bunch of old white dudes know what the membership needs to hear. I realize you could argue that it's just a case of "whatever the bretheren deem important becomes important to the membership", but I don't see it that way. And I'm a pretty sketchy mormon.

The LDS Church hires professional help in crafting it's teachings and speeches and general public image today. Madison Avenue advertising folks. Then they have some committees staffed by their own professionals. . . degreed sociologists, psychologists, social scientists of all kinds.

They also have secretaries or clerks who read all the mail and file reports highlighting current issues per the mail/email from the public as well as local leaderships. . . . All this goes into the hopper, so to speak.

Leaders chosen to give speeches in conference are notified well in advance so they can submit their proposed remarks to the committees, who go over them analytically looking for problematical ideas or phrases, and edit them out. Sometimes the committees completely rewrite parts of these speeches and sorta tell the GA what he can/must say.

The "themes" are carefully selected and crafted, and not "accidental" by any means, rest assured.

The LDS Church has learned to do a lot better than the Holy Ghost.

 

[babe]

I've found it interesting that General Conferences often have "themes" - that is to say, recurring visits to a particular topic. It's seems to me that these "themes" are, a goodly portion of the time, not something that is being generally discussed in the church, but warrants dialogue.

To me, this seems like revelation. A bunch of old white dudes know what the membership needs to hear. I realize you could argue that it's just a case of "whatever the bretheren deem important becomes important to the membership", but I don't see it that way. And I'm a pretty sketchy mormon.

The LDS Church hires professional help in crafting it's teachings and speeches and general public image today. Madison Avenue advertising folks. Then they have some committees staffed by their own professionals. . . degreed sociologists, psychologists, social scientists of all kinds.

They also have secretaries or clerks who read all the mail and file reports highlighting current issues per the mail/email from the public as well as local leaderships. . . . All this goes into the hopper, so to speak.

Leaders chosen to give speeches in conference are notified well in advance so they can submit their proposed remarks to the committees, who go over them analytically looking for problematical ideas or phrases, and edit them out. Sometimes the committees completely rewrite parts of these speeches and sorta tell the GA what he can/must say.

The "themes" are carefully selected and crafted, and not "accidental" by any means, rest assured.

The LDS Church has learned to do a lot better than the Holy Ghost.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

There is never question on alt fake accent. Why do truthers say truth?

I take your silence as conceding to my point. My friend why does LDS make this false doctrine nobody other religion claims? Other religion say the Catholics goes astray in dark ages. LDSes make new claims there is never succession beyond Jesus Christ? There is no historical evidence in fact this is opposite. If you need to sell people into religion long term it is easyier to claim the Bible was rewritten by evil popes like the Martin Luther said.

 

[babe]

I take your silence as conceding to my point. My friend why does LDS make this false doctrine nobody other religion claims? Other religion say the Catholics goes astray in dark ages. LDSes make new claims there is never succession beyond Jesus Christ? There is no historical evidence in fact this is opposite. If you need to sell people into religion long term it is easyier to claim the Bible was rewritten by evil popes like the Martin Luther said.

Mormon silence should never be construed to mean "conceding" a point. Rather, it's a statement that the unbelievers are no longer deemed "missionary contacts" but "swine". As in not worthy of having pearls to trample in the mud.

LDS doctrine considers, in relation to the Catholics, whether east/west, Roman/Orthodox, that God just walks away from Church leadership that rejects God's leadership, and starts things over again. Well, except in their own case, since the doctrine of papal infallibility has been resurrected and raised from the dead on steroids in Mormonism. We are the last dispensation, there isn't time to "start over". Instead, Joseph Smith wrote, God will send Jesus in Glory to destroy the wicked. Even Catholics will face this judgment. The New Testament describes conditions of apostasy in that time frame as prevailing prior to the return of Jesus. Some Mormons, who have actually paid attention to the scriptures, have the notion that God will "set the Church in order" first, as well. . . indicating a judgment to be made on LDS leadership.

So yes, it's Mormon doctrine that internal leadership that goes sufficiently wrong must be removed from their office by some act of God at some point sufficiently close to the coming of Christ. Joseph Smith also taught that leadership that goes wrong has no "Priesthood" with God. So it's tautological that when leadership goes wrong, the assertion of infallibility is false.

 

[LogGrad98]

I take your silence as conceding to my point. My friend why does LDS make this false doctrine nobody other religion claims? Other religion say the Catholics goes astray in dark ages. LDSes make new claims there is never succession beyond Jesus Christ? There is no historical evidence in fact this is opposite. If you need to sell people into religion long term it is easyier to claim the Bible was rewritten by evil popes like the Martin Luther said COMRADE.

Hilarious!!

 

[b_line]

The LDS Church hires professional help in crafting it's teachings and speeches and general public image today. Madison Avenue advertising folks. Then they have some committees staffed by their own professionals. . . degreed sociologists, psychologists, social scientists of all kinds.

They also have secretaries or clerks who read all the mail and file reports highlighting current issues per the mail/email from the public as well as local leaderships. . . . All this goes into the hopper, so to speak.

Leaders chosen to give speeches in conference are notified well in advance so they can submit their proposed remarks to the committees, who go over them analytically looking for problematical ideas or phrases, and edit them out. Sometimes the committees completely rewrite parts of these speeches and sorta tell the GA what he can/must say.

The "themes" are carefully selected and crafted, and not "accidental" by any means, rest assured.

The LDS Church has learned to do a lot better than the Holy Ghost.

Having known someone who has spoken in conference personally, I can attest to the falseness of this statement. Unless that person was lying to me. But I strongly doubt that.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I take your silence as conceding to my point. My friend why does LDS make this false doctrine nobody other religion claims? Other religion say the Catholics goes astray in dark ages. LDSes make new claims there is never succession beyond Jesus Christ? There is no historical evidence in fact this is opposite. If you need to sell people into religion long term it is easyier to claim the Bible was rewritten by evil popes like the Martin Luther said.

No, I try not to respond to alts with fake accents. I only read the first line of this post because you quoted me.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Mormon silence should never be construed to mean "conceding" a point. Rather, it's a statement that the unbelievers are no longer deemed "missionary contacts" but "swine". As in not worthy of having pearls to trample in the mud.

LDS doctrine considers, in relation to the Catholics, whether east/west, Roman/Orthodox, that God just walks away from Church leadership that rejects God's leadership, and starts things over again. Well, except in their own case, since the doctrine of papal infallibility has been resurrected and raised from the dead on steroids in Mormonism. We are the last dispensation, there isn't time to "start over". Instead, Joseph Smith wrote, God will send Jesus in Glory to destroy the wicked. Even Catholics will face this judgment. The New Testament describes conditions of apostasy in that time frame as prevailing prior to the return of Jesus. Some Mormons, who have actually paid attention to the scriptures, have the notion that God will "set the Church in order" first, as well. . . indicating a judgment to be made on LDS leadership.

So yes, it's Mormon doctrine that internal leadership that goes sufficiently wrong must be removed from their office by some act of God at some point sufficiently close to the coming of Christ. Joseph Smith also taught that leadership that goes wrong has no "Priesthood" with God. So it's tautological that when leadership goes wrong, the assertion of infallibility is false.

Not really true either babe, I planned on responding to another of your posts but got busy. I think you're off your meds or have a new axe to grind. If I felt boobs was anything other than a troll I'd respond.