Marlin K Jensen: Large numbers NOT apostatizing

[_bcspace]

To bad you can't back up that it is the gospel according to the LDS church.

It's the only way I back it up. If the Church says something is not doctrine in one of it's publications, it's not doctrine. Simple as that. I merely go with what the Church says.

[_Themis]

To bad you can't back up that it is the gospel according to the LDS church.

It's the only way I back it up. If the Church says something is not doctrine in one of it's publications, it's not doctrine. Simple as that. I merely go with what the Church says.

CFR

[_Gentile Persuasion]

The role of the Prophet in the church is perfectly clear.

He speaks for God, except when he doesn't. He is right, except when he is wrong. He should always be followed, except when he shouldn't.

[_bcspace]

He speaks for God, except when he doesn't. He is right, except when he is wrong. He should always be followed, except when he shouldn't.

Incorrect. D&C 107 (circa 1835 and before) shows that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are equal in authority. Thus, as the Church states on Approaching Mormon Doctrine, all fifteen (both bodies) establish the doctrine.

It's the only way I back it up. If the Church says something is not doctrine in one of it's publications, it's not doctrine. Simple as that. I merely go with what the Church says.

CFR

The introduction to your LDS edition Bible Dictionary is one glaring example. It says it's not doctrine.

[_Themis]

The introduction to your LDS edition Bible Dictionary is one glaring example. It says it's not doctrine.

So. No where does the church say that it will state on every instance what is not doctrine in it's publications. Others have been trying to see if you will address this instead of continuing to avoid it as usual.

I will repeat the question again from Brade to give you yet another chance to see if you will address it.

"how it is that saying "X is in Y" entails that "everything in Y is X."

[_malkie]

He speaks for God, except when he doesn't. He is right, except when he is wrong. He should always be followed, except when he shouldn't.

Incorrect. D&C 107 (circa 1835 and before) shows that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are equal in authority. Thus, as the Church states on Approaching Mormon Doctrine, all fifteen (both bodies) establish the doctrine.

It's the only way I back it up. If the Church says something is not doctrine in one of it's publications, it's not doctrine. Simple as that. I merely go with what the Church says.

CFR

The introduction to your LDS edition Bible Dictionary is one glaring example. It says it's not doctrine.

The way I read the remarks of President Hinckley, "First Presidency Message", Ensign December 2005, I don't think he would agree that the 12 are "needed" to establish doctrine, unless there is no functioning 1st Presidency:

The question arises, How can they be equal in authority? Speaking to this question, President Joseph F. Smith (1838–1918) taught: “I want here to correct an impression that has grown up to some extent among the people, and that is, that the Twelve Apostles possess equal authority with the First Presidency in the Church. This is correct when there is no other Presidency but the Twelve Apostles; but so long as there are three presiding Elders who possess the presiding authority in the Church, the authority of the Twelve Apostles is not equal to theirs. If it were so, there would be two equal authorities and two equal quorums in the Priesthood, running parallel, and that could not be, because there must be a head”.

Likewise, the Seventy, who serve under the direction of the Twelve, would become equal in authority only in the event that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve were somehow destroyed.

[_bcspace]

The way I read the remarks of President Hinckley, "First Presidency Message", Ensign December 2005, I don't think he would agree that the 12 are "needed" to establish doctrine.

I think he would agree because such was published in summary (Approaching Mormon Doctrine) during the administration of his First Presidency. Say rather that there is unanimity after counseling together before the head acts or approves. The same occurred with, for example OD-1.

[_Equality]

The way I read the remarks of President Hinckley, "First Presidency Message", Ensign December 2005, I don't think he would agree that the 12 are "needed" to establish doctrine.

I think he would agree because such was published in summary (Approaching Mormon Doctrine) during the administration of his First Presidency. Say rather that there is unanimity after counseling together before the head acts or approves. The same occurred with, for example OD-1.

Note the passive voice. Was published by whom? Did Gordon B. Hinckley publish Approaching Mormon Doctrine? Did he sign it? Did the other members of the FP and the Q12 sign it? Who wrote it? Was it presented to the body of the church for a sustaining vote by common consent?

[_malkie]

The way I read the remarks of President Hinckley, "First Presidency Message", Ensign December 2005, I don't think he would agree that the 12 are "needed" to establish doctrine.

I think he would agree because such was published in summary (Approaching Mormon Doctrine) during the administration of his First Presidency. Say rather that there is unanimity after counseling together before the head acts or approves. The same occurred with, for example OD-1.

Did this, then, signal a change in the relationship of the two bodies? What if there is not "unanimity after counseling together"?

And what about the 70 - if they are "equal" to the 12, who are "equal" to the 3, should the 70 not also be required to agree unanimously?

Or is this another one of these things like the husband and wife being "equal" while the husband presides in the home?

For some reason it makes me think of Orwell - some are more equal than others.

[_bcspace]

I think he would agree because such was published in summary (Approaching Mormon Doctrine) during the administration of his First Presidency. Say rather that there is unanimity after counseling together before the head acts or approves. The same occurred with, for example OD-1.

Did this, then, signal a change in the relationship of the two bodies?

No change that I can see.

What if there is not "unanimity after counseling together"?

The quorum must be unanimous (D&C 107:27). Would be interesting to read about cases where they are not.