Could anyone write Mormon Doctrine?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Didn't he do that at the beginning of the book saying he alone is solely responsible for it's content? Yes? No?

Nobody Read and reads that.

Antis read the title only, and thereby misconstrue our doctrine because BRM overstated it. A simple change of Title would have eliminated most of the problems, but then it may not have sold. Hence, we probably had a problem with Deseret Book and BRM. Therein lies the rub.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

None of us know the higher or upper echelon administration of the Church. And if we did, "they'd have to kill us."

Just one factor to keep in mind. Even at the time frame when DoM was President much of the Twelve was a family affair, being friends and relatives of Young, Pratt or one of the Smith lines.

BRM was son-in-law to Joseph F. Smith or Fielding Smith, the latter one, not the earlier one, as I confuse the two. I know nothing about nominating new GAs or new apostles, but just knowing about the Church, familiarity with individuals does play a role.

I know somebody will cite an example of some leader being identified with which nobody was familiar, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. And the Twelve has always had different tendencies, mullah tendencies coupled with more liberal tendencies. Usually they balance each other out. Perhaps one side negotiates for one sort, and another negotiates for another sort, and JFS happened to have some chits ready when BRM's name came up. I don't know much abour rapid progression, he only had two callings which he received early on, GA Seventy and then Apostle. In today's world the progression could not happen as quickly.

I'm told that there is no negotiating and thus no "chits" when a new opening for an apostle presents itself. I'm told President Hinckley called it one of the loneliest decisions a prophet can make.

And why wouldn't it be ... especially if we truly live in Arch's world, where God is off playing golf while his President is intermingling his own personal opinions into church policy.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I have been told by a reliable source that there is no negotiating and thus no "chits" when a new opening for an apostle presents itself. I'm told President Hinckley called it one of the loneliest moments a prophet can experience.

And why wouldn't it be ... especially if we truly live in Arch's world, where God is off playing golf while his President is intermingling his own personal opinions into church policy.

We now receive the wisdom of an anonymous "reliable" source. That's a dependable source.

I submit, it is a question of familiarity, most of the time. And why are all recent apostles called from the Seventies? Those men have track records, and are somewhat familiar to the selectors. Without a better source than your anonymous, it doesn't sound very credible.

If I had to guess and speculate, I would imagine the President consults his counselors, and perhaps the President of the Quorum of Twelve. That would be in line with the corporate modeling which the Church seems to emulate in its administrative structure. And seeing as how, these persons need to get along with the new guy, why wouldn't the selection process be so?

Let's draw an analogy to a new Bishop or New Stake President.

The selector will interview almost every available High Priest and inquire which person that person would select. Interestingly, many of the recommenders will identify the same person. Last time our Stake President was selected, our bishop told me about the process and he identified who he would have chosen and that person was chosen.

It's not a random choice in a hat, or some prophet rambling through the desert looking for Jesse's youngest son.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

And why wouldn't it be ... especially if we truly live in Arch's world, where God is off playing golf while his President is intermingling his own personal opinions into church policy.

Or in Tex's world, where the prophet has no individual free agency and is simply a machine whose every action and utterance is conveyed directly from God with no personal bias whatsoever.

(just playing your game for a moment, Tex)

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We now receive the wisdom of an anonymous "reliable" source. That's a dependable source.

I went back and revised the word "reliable" but obviously not quickly enough, not because I consider him unreliable but because I have no proof and would never expect anyone on Cougarguard to take my word for it.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Let's draw an analogy to a new Bishop or New Stake President
....
It's not a random choice in a hat, or some prophet rambling through the desert looking for Jesse's youngest son.

It's a bad analogy. One of the reasons my "source" (also a poor word choice on my part) indicated it was such a lonely decision is because the prophet is potentially selecting a future leader of the church. No decision, Bishop, Stake President, or otherwise can compare.

Why could it not be like Samuel's selection of David, incidentally?

Or in Tex's world, where the prophet has no individual free agency and is simply a machine whose every action and utterance is conveyed directly from God with no personal bias whatsoever.

(just playing your game for a moment, Tex)

Obviously playing golf is an exaggeration, Lebowski. But Arch has consistently argued for a more "hands off" God in these discussions. I, on the other hand, have gone nowhere near the "automaton" position.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's not a random choice in a hat, or some prophet rambling through the desert looking for Jesse's youngest son.

Unless someone has Joseph's peepstone or Oliver's rod?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Nobody Read and reads that.

Antis read the title only, and thereby misconstrue our doctrine because BRM overstated it. A simple change of Title would have eliminated most of the problems, but then it may not have sold. Hence, we probably had a problem with Deseret Book and BRM. Therein lies the rub.

You said if he called it his opinion (or put it in the title) no one would've cared which is obviously bullshit and you know it. It's in your nature and others like you to find as much as you can wrong with him, it, etc...and then piss and moan about it as much as you can. It's almost like a drug that you can't quit. You HAVE to find something to bitch about and slam. You're pretty much becoming a self-parody.

Well in the beginning of the book he did call it that and that wasn't good enough for you (because you said no one will read it),,,,However you said no one would've cared....well he did that,,,and obviously you still care.....but I'm sure you'll come up with caveat #3128957203582035832053289058023582358092359389052 3 so nevermind.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Obviously playing golf is an exaggeration, Lebowski. But Arch has consistently argued for a more "hands off" God in these discussions. I, on the other hand, have gone nowhere near the "automaton" position.

Yes but as your sig quotes illustrate, you like to make a caricature of your opponents' viewpoints. It tends to polarize discussions.

But I don't have a dog in this fight, so carry on. Sorry for the disruption.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

But I don't have a dog in this fight, so carry on. Sorry for the disruption.

Indeed.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

You said if he called it his opinion (or put it in the title) no one would've cared which is obviously bullshit and you know it. It's in your nature and others like you to find as much as you can wrong with him, it, etc...and then piss and moan about it as much as you can. It's almost like a drug that you can't quit. You HAVE to find something to bitch about and slam. You're pretty much becoming a self-parody.

Well in the beginning of the book he did call it that and that wasn't good enough for you (because you said no one will read it),,,,However you said no one would've cared....well he did that,,,and obviously you still care.....but I'm sure you'll come up with caveat #3128957203582035832053289058023582358092359389052 3 so nevermind.

I had nothing against BRM, but I took offense at the title. You do a lousy of job of trying to confuse or clarify the issue.

It's simple. It's called "Mormon Doctrine". When it shouldn't be called that. He did not have authority to make that call. Once it's called Bruce's Doctrine, he may make all the opinion he wishes.