The process of lifting the ban required unprecedented unity among the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. This collaborative effort reflects the Church’s emphasis on consensus and collective revelation, principles central to its governance structure.
It's doubtful this could have occurred before 1978 and the surrounding milieu and forces that finally moved the leadership to work together collaboratively to reach consensus.
I'm not convinced that God forces his will when the forces opposing His will are running in opposition. Happened at the time of Adam and Moses, just to mention two examples, and it's happened ever since.
Regards,
MG
Just to remind you, this is the image most Mormons have of the first presidency. That their “special witness of Christ” is literal, not metaphorical.
And also as a reminder, 1978 was 15+ years after the civil rights movement’s iconic “I have a dream” speech.
I'm a fan of "line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little, there a little".
This scriptural/canonical teaching supports what I've already said.
What's going on the culture definitely impacts all of this also. I agree with you.
Do you believe that there will be people in the highest kingdom who haven’t accepted membership in the Mormon Church and for whom a proxy or living baptism has not been performed?
There are gradations of many kinds here on planet earth in respect to the conditions people find themselves in. Accident? Not according to the Apostle Paul. Same in the afterlife? Jesus seemed to point that direction. How ordinances factor into all of that becomes a matter of agency, works, and God's justice/mercy as a result of the mission and Atonement of Jesus Christ.
Regards,
MG
MG, I am tolerably familiar with Paul but am at a loss to think of what you are referring to or have in mind here. Could you explain?
I'm a fan of "line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little, there a little".
MG, That verse doesn't mean what you think it does. Biblical scholars will tell you that, in the original Hebrew, it was intended to convey a recitation of gibberish.
Dan McClellan commented on this, a few years ago, on the MAD board:
'So the German versions are much closer to what's really going on in the text. The Hebrew is repetitive and nonsensical precisely because it is supposed to be mimicking unintelligible speech. This is why the very next line is "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people." Literally, the Hebrew says tsav latsav tsav latsav qav laqav qav laqav. Isaiah is basically saying, "he's gonna say 'blah blah blah blah,' and you won't be able to understand." The translators in the 16th and 17th centuries didn't recognize this rhetorical device and tried hard to make some kind of sense of the words, which required some etymological fudging, but they came up with a plumb line and a word that refers to a precept or principle. The repetition includes the preposition la-, which refers to movement towards or benefit for, which they interpreted as "upon," and thus was born the phrase "precept upon precept, line upon line." '
There are gradations of many kinds here on planet earth in respect to the conditions people find themselves in. Accident? Not according to the Apostle Paul. Same in the afterlife? Jesus seemed to point that direction. How ordinances factor into all of that becomes a matter of agency, works, and God's justice/mercy as a result of the mission and Atonement of Jesus Christ.
Regards,
MG
MG, I am tolerably familiar with Paul but am at a loss to think of what you are referring to or have in mind here. Could you explain?
I'm a fan of "line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little, there a little".
MG, That verse doesn't mean what you think it does. Biblical scholars will tell you that, in the original Hebrew, it was intended to convey a recitation of gibberish.
Entrapment rhetoric?
Perhaps the most reasonable explanation for the similar language in Restoration scripture and Isaiah 28:7–13 can be found if the Isaiah passage is interpreted in the context of entrapment rhetoric. As an entrapment episode, Isaiah is allowed to cleverly change the meaning of the drunkards mocking phrase in verse 10 to teach God’s paradigm of revelation in verse 13. Thus, the verse 13 language would be the very inspiration and meaning for the similar language’s use in Restoration scripture. If one prefers this explanation for the relationship between the texts, then it seems wiser to reference verse 13 rather than verse 10 of Isaiah 28 when cross-referencing the Restoration scripture language with Isaiah. https://rsc.BYU.edu/prophets-prophecies ... perplexity
Three instances in restoration Scripture.
Some folks may not subscribe to God revealing His will incrementally. To me it makes sense. Same thing with evolution.
Not similar. Identical... Nothing in the concept of line upon line includes God either lying to the leaders of his one and only true Church or sitting back and letting them be deceived into thinking they were inspired to present objectively false information as an inspired interpretation of Holy Scripture...
Along with RI, McLellan's take matches Grindael's also, If I recall correctly. There is simply nothing in the actual language to justify the Mormon take on the phrase.
There are gradations of many kinds here on planet earth in respect to the conditions people find themselves in. Accident? Not according to the Apostle Paul. Same in the afterlife? Jesus seemed to point that direction. How ordinances factor into all of that becomes a matter of agency, works, and God's justice/mercy as a result of the mission and Atonement of Jesus Christ.
Regards,
MG
MG, I am tolerably familiar with Paul but am at a loss to think of what you are referring to or have in mind here. Could you explain?
Good luck with that huckelberry, I’ve asked a similar question several times and gotten mealy mouthed ambiguity every time. He’s being deliberately obtuse because he doesn’t want people to understand what he actually thinks and believes on specific things. He wants to live in a cloud of ambiguity so he cannot be held accountable for his words. Sage A.I. saw this trait throughout his postings. It’s a pattern.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Not similar. Identical... Nothing in the concept of line upon line includes God either lying to the leaders of his one and only true Church or sitting back and letting them be deceived into thinking they were inspired to present objectively false information as an inspired interpretation of Holy Scripture...
Along with RI, McLellan's take matches Grindael's also, If I recall correctly. There is simply nothing in the actual language to justify the Mormon take on the phrase.
It's like the CoJCoLDS teaching (by Joseph Fielding Smith, I believe) that we should always use 'thee' and 'thou' when speaking to God, because these were supposedly the more formal and respectful terms of address in Jacobean English. In reality, these were really the more vulgar ways of using the word 'you.' These repeated misreadings of language and history become embarrassing. I don't know whether it's sad or funny.
Do you believe that after they die, people will be assigned distinctly separate “kingdoms” in which they will be collated with other, equally performing like-minded individuals, domains in which they will reside forever and from which they have no ability to progress to a “higher” kingdom?
Do you believe that there will be people in the highest kingdom who haven’t accepted membership in the Mormon Church and for whom a proxy or living baptism has not been performed?
There are gradations of many kinds here on planet earth in respect to the conditions people find themselves in. Accident? Not according to the Apostle Paul. Same in the afterlife? Jesus seemed to point that direction. How ordinances factor into all of that becomes a matter of agency, works, and God's justice/mercy as a result of the mission and Atonement of Jesus Christ.
MG, I see why you didn't post the actual text of Acts 17:26.
Acts 17:26 says: "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands."
It's because it makes no sense in regards to your argument. Acts clearly speaks of earthly nations, not celestial degrees of glory. It's quite a stretch to suggest that a reference to Earth's national boundaries says anything about an afterlife heavenly apportionment.
Do you believe that after they die, people will be assigned distinctly separate “kingdoms” in which they will be collated with other, equally performing like-minded individuals, domains in which they will reside forever and from which they have no ability to progress to a “higher” kingdom?
Do you believe that there will be people in the highest kingdom who haven’t accepted membership in the Mormon Church and for whom a proxy or living baptism has not been performed?
There are gradations of many kinds here on planet earth in respect to the conditions people find themselves in. Accident? Not according to the Apostle Paul. Same in the afterlife? Jesus seemed to point that direction. How ordinances factor into all of that becomes a matter of agency, works, and God's justice/mercy as a result of the mission and Atonement of Jesus Christ.
MG, I see why you didn't post the actual text of Acts 17:26.
Acts 17:26 says: "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands."
It's because it makes no sense in regards to your argument. Acts clearly speaks of earthly nations, not celestial degrees of glory. It's quite a stretch to suggest that a reference to Earth's national boundaries says anything about an afterlife heavenly apportionment.
Thanks, Morley.
I notice the passage goes on about God's connection to all people and how people can find some understanding. It is a rather universal focus which I do not see connecting to MG's proposal.
I rather hope MG is not supporting the ugly idea that privilege and privation in where one is born is based upon preexistence valor and accomplishments, an idea sometimes proposed by past LDS authorities. Such an idea is not in the passage at all.
