08-24-2006, 05:48 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Quote:
10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. |
|
08-24-2006, 05:52 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
If you're making a different point, you may want to state it.
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
|
08-24-2006, 05:53 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Quote:
Why were the seers, prophets, apostles, of 100 years ago able to say that literal death existed not before the fall, only to say today that the church has no official stance on evolution? Why were the seers, prophets, apostles of 100 years ago able to say that Adam was God, and the only one we dealt with in this probation, only to say today that that doctrine is of the devil? |
|
08-24-2006, 05:59 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Quote:
To my point, those that should be in the 'know' aren't really in the know, should we as members of His church not be in the know? |
|
08-24-2006, 06:00 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
|
08-24-2006, 06:23 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I don't have a problem with it. The church is guided by inspiration (assuming one accepts their claim). In that case, the only individuals authorized to speak on behalf of the entire church are the president of the church and the 12 apostles when acting as a group. It is entirely unrealistic to expect that those individuals have the time or inclination to pray and receive an answer on thousands, even millions, of mundane issues that, in the grand scheme of things, aren't entirely relevant to our salvation, though they may be relevant to satisfying curiousity. As the church has seen in the past, a general authority's statements on any given topic are frequently interpreted as being church doctrine, even though they aren't actually given authority to pronounce church doctrine. To avoid any potential confusion, the church of late has begun instructing general authorities to refrain from speaking on issues that haven't been accepted as doctrine. Seems like a good policy to me. If the church doesn't have a position on an issue, they shouldn't pretend that they do. |
|
08-24-2006, 06:29 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I actually don't find it all that ironic. The church does claim it receives "modern revelation." Revelation appears, however, frequently to be a process and not a lightning-strike of understanding (though presumably it can occur like that too). Given that in general, church leaders must ponder, pray and listen to receive revelation, and that all of this takes time, they have no option BUT to tread softly on issues that haven't yet been revealed. To do otherwise would be foolhardy. In fact, many of the mistakes of the past I imagine are somewhat attributable to an individual speaking out on an issue before he had received the entire answer. |
|
08-24-2006, 06:33 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
|
08-24-2006, 07:18 PM | #19 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19
|
none
I don't expect clarification or revelation on things that haven't been revealed---like evolution. I would like to see an explanation for things that were taught as doctrine and later retracted.
1. Book Of Abraham not being what Joseph said it was, including the text in the book "by his own hand upon papyrus" 2. Adam God Theory 3. Book of Mormon translation not being a translation in any accepted sense of the word. |
08-24-2006, 07:24 PM | #20 | |
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
Quote:
__________________
"... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|