Could I jump like this while wearing embroidered underwear?
Posted on 05/31/2012 10:36:42 AM PDT by Colofornian
At the April (2012) General Conference of the Mormon Church, Apostle D. Todd Christofferson told the congregation, “…we must admit there has been and still persists some confusion about our doctrine and how it is established. That is the subject I wish to address today.”
In his remarks, Apostle Christofferson explained,
“The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelations to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal expression may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2)… At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that ‘a prophet [is] a prophet only when [he] is acting as such.” (Apostle D. Todd Christofferson, “The Doctrine of Christ,” Ensign, May 2012, p. 88)
This, after he said several pages earlier:
“By 1954, President J. Reuben Clark Jr., then a counselor in the First Presidency, explained how doctrine is promulgated in the Church and the preeminent role of the President of the Church. Speaking of members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he stated: ‘[We] should [bear] in mind that some of the General Authorities have had assigned to them a special calling; they possess a special gift; they are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, which gives them a special spiritual endowment in connection with their teaching of the people. They have the right, the power, and authority to declare the mind and will of God to his people, subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. Others of the General Authorities are not given this special spiritual endowment and authority covering their teaching; they have a resulting limitation, and the resulting limitation upon their power and authority in teaching applies to every other officer and member of the Church, for none of them is spiritually endowed as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Furthermore, as just indicated, the President of the Church has a further and special spiritual endowment in this respect, for he is the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the whole Church.’” (pp. 86-87)
OK, so let me get this straight:
1.The General Authorities have authority to declare doctrine.
2.However, some of the General Authorities are limited.
3.Apparently, the only one without limitation is the President of the Church.
4.At the same time, if the President says something out of sync that is just his personal (though well-thought out) opinion, then it is “not meant to be official or binding for the whole church.”
5.Conclusion: Therefore, we really can’t trust ANYTHING from these leaders–including the Prophet– because everything they say could possibly be just their personal opinion.
Thus, why bother having these leaders in the first place if they can’t be fully trusted and might be just spouting off personal opinions that are not scriptural?
And it’s so confusing because in October 2010, 13th President Ezra Taft Benson’s speech “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” was quoted (twice) in General Conference, point by point. And in that speech Benson said that a prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” for something to be considered a word from the Lord. So, I’m left with the conclusion that I can trust a Mormon leader’s words only if my personal revelation tells me he’s not merely speaking from his own limited perspective/opinion. Here we go — it all boils down to personal revelation, doesn’t it?
OK, then, I get it. I’m so glad LDS Apostle Christofferson cleared things up. But wait. What if I, as a Mormon (for the sake of argument), determine by personal revelation that everything this apostle (note: he’s not even the President) just told us in the Conference was nothing more than just his, personal opinion? I guess we can disregard everything he said in this article. Case closed…Is this what we call a spiritual free-for-all?
1.The General Authorities have authority to declare doctrine.
2.However, some of the General Authorities are limited.
3.Apparently, the only one without limitation is the President of the Church.
4.At the same time, if the President says something out of sync that is just his personal (though well-thought out) opinion, then it is “not meant to be official or binding for the whole church.”
5.Conclusion: Therefore, we really can’t trust ANYTHING from these leaders–including the Prophet– because everything they say could possibly be just their personal opinion.
Thus, why bother having these leaders in the first place if they can’t be fully trusted and might be just spouting off personal opinions that are not scriptural?
...OK, then, I get it. I’m so glad LDS Apostle Christofferson cleared things up. But wait. What if I, as a Mormon (for the sake of argument), determine by personal revelation that everything this apostle (note: he’s not even the President) just told us in the Conference was nothing more than just his, personal opinion? I guess we can disregard everything he said in this article. Case closed…Is this what we call a spiritual free-for-all?
Yup...a full "free-for-all"...which is why the Lafferty brothers had a "personal revelation" about slaughtering a sister-in-law and her daughter...Read about it in the book Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer. (One of those brothers who murdered was a former mainstream Lds youth leader)
What's "funny" in Mormonism is that an employed "PR" rep of Lds, Inc. is more fully embraced by Mormon grassroots who want to "look good" in the eyes of their "Gentile" neighbors than the direct words spoken by their 19th and 20th century "prophets" and apostles.
They will quickly side with the "PR" rep as representing "official" Mormondom -- all while casting Brigham Young, or Mitt Romney's GG Grandfathers, Orson and Parley Pratt (Lds "apostles"); or Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie, under the bus.
place marker
Sort of like playing “Simon Says”, except with your soul at stake.
The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that ‘a prophet [is] a prophet only when [he] is acting as such.”
Face it. It is what the leaders want it to be when they want it to be. And if you buck the leadership you are bucking God so ST_U and tithe. At least you guys get docrine-based superiority over your wimmin.
I object to the “theology” keyword. JMHO. There ain’t no “theo” in the “ology” that is the LDS.
Joe Smith couldn’t advance in the NY Masonic hierarchy (plus, they were allowing negroes to be members) so he made up a kooky replacement and went west.
Southern Democrats couldn’t accept that the Northern Masons were tolerant and allowing negroes into the order so they made up a kooky replacement (KKK).
Mohammed didn’t like that he and his violent family/tribe were being tossed out of every village they came to and were doomed to wander. He made a kooky ideology that justified his tyranny and violence and foisted it on the world at the point of a deadly weapon.
“I object to the “theology” keyword. JMHO. There ain’t no “theo” in the “ology” that is the LDS.”
Polytheology - the theology of millions of mormonic gods!
Nailing jello to the wall. . . . . .
>The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that ‘a prophet [is] a prophet only when [he] is acting as such.”<
.
What the Latter Day Saints are really saying is that the followers of Jesus were wrong for 18 centuries until Joseph Smith came on the scene to set them right.
St. Augustine was wrong, St. Thomas Aquinas erred, all the Holy Martyrs throughout the ages gave up their lives in vain, etc.
Yeah, right.
Could be or maybe.....
Yeah, I don’t think that’s how the Masons of the north and south organized. Sure, there were probably Masons in both groups but they weren’t leaders of some offshoot group.
Secretary, Keith Lodge 187 - Gilroy.
Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are considered unofficial by said officials.At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially.This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness.Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial.This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used on FR by haters and bigots cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site elsewhere.Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially.
I’ll bet it would be hard to reMAIN a MORMON; after one watches BrainGames on the Nat Geo channel!
(But was this from an official Ejonesie22 source officially authorized by Ejonesie22?)
Pray about it and the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth to you.
I unofficially gave Elsie an official endorsement some time ago. It was blanket permission that officially lasts indefinitely unless I unofficially revoke it in an official manner. Any variations are not officially valid unless officially endorsed by the proper officials acting unofficially in their official capacity.
This is not to imply that my statement is official, unless officially designated as being unofficial officially.
~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President
Looks like the SUBJECT of this thread, is to MORMONs, as Holy Water is to Dracula!
Could I jump like this while wearing embroidered underwear?
(I assume, of course, that had you said this thru your official PR agent, that would make your statement even more official; well, at least that's the way it works in the "official" Mormon church...so I just assumed that's the way it works for you as well)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.