Marlin K Jensen: Large numbers NOT apostatizing

[_Drifting]

Fortunately, most well adjusted adults are capable of discernment.

Just not when they hold the mantle of Prophet...

[_Drifting]

LOL!
What came first?

Pressure from non Mormon citizens about the Church's polygamous practice or the revelation making it an ex communicable offence?

Pressure from non Mormon sports teams and government officials about it's doctrinal position on blacks or the revelation reversing the position?

If you don't already know the answers then perhaps you wish to properly research the topics to factually repudiate my pontificating.

I look forward to your substantial rebuttal....

Bump for subby...

[_Drifting]

It's not a cop out by any stretch. It's simply following what's long been established. Beginning with D&C 107, we see that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are equal in authority and therefore, all 15 must agree of doctrine. Even WW had to get approval for the Manifesto (and it took two months If I recall correctly).

So now that you have been reminded and keep being reminded of the clear rule for identifying doctrine, you can't accept it because it invalidates many of your cherished criticism.

The fact of the matter is that the scriptures are only a tiny tiny portion of all the words ever spoken by the prophets gleaned over long periods of time. And so here is yet another example of why you must accept the Church standard for doctrine besides common sense.

bcspace, putting 'doctrine or not doctrine' to one side.
How do you identify when the Prophet is speaking as the Prophet and when the Prophet is speaking only as a man?

Bump for bcspace (but subgenius can have a go if he's man enough)

[_Yoda]

bcspace, putting 'doctrine or not doctrine' to one side.
How do you identify when the Prophet is speaking as the Prophet and when the Prophet is speaking only as a man?

I'm curious about this one, myself.

[_Jason Bourne]

You're forgetting about John the Beloved and the Three Nephites.

They don't count. Jesus said this I believe in a general public discussion.

[_Jason Bourne]

I never thought a believer would throw Jesus under the bus. So strange.

Whatever it takes to defend the restoration....

[_Franktalk]

Jesus said there were those then living that would never taste death and who would be alive at his coming in power and glory. Jesus thought his second coming was very soon.

No, a thousand times no. Why must people place words in the mouth of Jesus?

Read this carefully.

Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

The Bible is full of prophets being taken to the future to witness first hand the future. In this case we have the Apostle John taken to the future to witness first hand the end times and the coming of Christ. How many of the Apostles
were taken to the future we don't know. Why must people place the limitations of the flesh upon God? The linear aspect of time for most of men is not absolute for all men. The assumption of linear time placed on Christ is an attempt to negate prophecy and the power of God.

[_Buffalo]

I never thought a believer would throw Jesus under the bus. So strange.

Whatever it takes to defend the restoration....

And SAVE JOSEPH!

[_Buffalo]

Mark 14:6

But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

[_bcspace]

bcspace, putting 'doctrine or not doctrine' to one side.

How do you identify when the Prophet is speaking as the Prophet and when the Prophet is speaking only as a man?

When his words are published by the LDS Church as doctrine (without qualification).