Joseph wrote:Droppy wrote: "If, however, we lose the prophets, the consequence is general apostasy, or a "Great Apostasy" as occurred after the passing of the Apostles. " ******************************************
Just one problem with that. Four Apostles with the authority were on the earth the whole time according to lds-inc scripture.
However, according to LDS doctrine, the purpose and function of those four is not known and has never been elucidated. What is known is that the responsibility and task of restoring a dispensation, or of maintaining doctrinal purity and legitimate priesthood government during a dispensation, falls primarily upon mortal human representatives of the Lord, not upon translated beings.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
bcspace wrote:I don't see how anyone could consider the change (if there was indeed a change) a flaw or a problem.
Well, when one sees doctrine as the absolute truth, then it becomes a problem.
"Absolute" in what sense?
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
In the divine, unchanging sense repeatedly taught by Church leaders. You read my Element piece, you know what I am talking about.
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause. - Droopy
the narrator wrote:In the divine, unchanging sense repeatedly taught by Church leaders. You read my Element piece, you know what I am talking about.
Is your piece available online somewhere? Thanks.
I've posted a link to it a few times already in this thread.
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause. - Droopy
Bcspace and Droopy, what about this latest doctrine of the Church openly supporting what is known as the Utah Compact regarding the treatment of illegal immigrants. Since conservative Mormons are dead set against this, does it change the status of the Church's position as being nondoctrinal?
I haven't seen anything in the Church's statements on the compact that precludes a truly conservative (and therefore Gospel) solution, such as recognizing that we already have a naturalization process and enforcement is all that is necessary to solve the problem.
Rather than sweeping up illegals, I personally would put up a real fence and punish employers and local governments who hire or otherwise benefit illegals. If an illegal wants to be here or work here all he and his family have to do is go back out and come in through the front door in sight of the host.
Nothing in the above proposed solution goes against anything the Church has said and is actually the only real and effective solution on the table,
I guess when you can't count on the Spirit to give consistent revelation, then you need something like the correlation department.
You can count on the Spirit. You just have to make sure you can count on the man. That is why it takes all 15 prophets and apostles to make doctrine and that based on the 1835 principle in D&C 107 that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority. Tha manuals don't change that much or that often. If there was some egregious doctrinal error, they would have fixed it by now.
Bcspace and Droopy, what about this latest doctrine of the Church openly supporting what is known as the Utah Compact regarding the treatment of illegal immigrants. Since conservative Mormons are dead set against this, does it change the status of the Church's position as being nondoctrinal?
I haven't seen anything in the Church's statements on the compact that precludes a truly conservative (and therefore Gospel) solution, such as recognizing that we already have a naturalization process and enforcement is all that is necessary to solve the problem.
Rather than sweeping up illegals, I personally would put up a real fence and punish employers and local governments who hire or otherwise benefit illegals. If an illegal wants to be here or work here all he and his family have to do is go back out and come in through the front door in sight of the host.
Nothing in the above proposed solution goes against anything the Church has said and is actually the only real and effective solution on the table,
In other words, you have not read the Utah Compact, nor recognize the Church's explicit support of it.
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause. - Droopy
In other words, you have not read the Utah Compact, nor recognize the Church's explicit support of it.
What makes you say that? I have read it (it's quite short in case you haven't) and like I said, there is nothing in it that precludes a truly conservative solution. by the way, did you notice the "Utah is best served by a free-market philosophy that maximizes individual freedom and opportunity."? The Church is reaffirming it's stance against socialism by supporting the compact.