A question for the Orthodox:

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Agreed. I don't understand why it would be important to the Lord that the prophet knows the future apostle (Tex suggested that the Lord put future apostles into the prophet's path so the prophet so they would know each other). To what end? If the Lord is telling the prophet the name, why must the prophet know the guy personally? The Lord gave the name. End of story. Familiarity with the individual is totally trivial, if God gave the one and only name that could be given.

Except no one is suggesting that, especially me.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

All of the evidence strongly suggests that the prophet selects the name and takes it to the Lord for confirmation, which also suggests many could be called and acceptable to the Lord. I sustain Elder Anderson because I believe he is an apostle. That doesn't mean I believe he is the only one who could have been an apostle. I wish they would look outside the circle of white guys educated in Utah or Idaho.

A proposition that again, no one is suggesting, not the least of which is Neil Andersen himself.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

As a guy sitting on the sidelines, I agree with this position. But again, I'm beginning to feel it won't matter much.

How would your opinion change, if it were to come out that Monson took several minority names before the Lord, and he said "no" to all of them?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

How would your opinion change, if it were to come out that Monson took several minority names before the Lord, and he said "no" to all of them?

If I felt it and believed that would be of comfort.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Tex and Indy believe Elder Anderson is THE apostle which God wants now, and I'm not saying those two profess this,

President Monson believes this. He said that explicitly. Take it up with President Monson, you hand-wringing pissant.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

President Monson believes this. He said that explicitly. Take it up with President Monson, you hand-wringing pissant.

You will disagree, but just because a person says something in a certain context doesn't mean a person believes it or means it in another context.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You will disagree, but just because a person says something in a certain context doesn't mean a person believes it or means it in another context.

What a convenient approach. Anytime the prophet says something you don't like, you can just tell yourself he doesn't necessarily mean it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

What a convenient approach. Anytime the prophet says something you don't like, you can just tell yourself he doesn't necessarily mean it.

How sloppy of you.

I believe he's using Mormonspeak, which is not empirical speech.

When he says the Lord has chosen, it includes within that subset, I took a name to the Lord after acquainting myself with persons and considering the possibilities, and he confirming by a burning that such selection was acceptable.

I'm merely translating. It's those who accept Mormonspeak at face value who are convenient and in denial. There is nothing empirical in the manner in which Mormons speak, and nothing we say is meant to be taken literally, when we are speaking in that manner.

[Archaea]

If President Monson had wanted to step into empirical speech, he would have pronounced, "I have seen a vision, the Lord appeared to me, and told me, this man is my new apostle."

He did not do that, so it is logical to make the assumption he took the traditional route of pondering it, evaluating it and praying about it to receive a confirmation. Any other permutation is aberational or the least common. Nothing in President Monson's declaration indicates otherwise.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You will disagree, but just because a person says something in a certain context doesn't mean a person believes it or means it in another context.

Which is exactly why you are the faithless shell of a man that you are. When you take parsing to the insane levels that you have, you render virtually everything ever uttered as completely open to interpretation and thereby robbing it of all value and validity.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Which is exactly why you are the faithless shell of a man that you are. When you take parsing to the insane levels that you have, you render virtually everything ever uttered as completely open to interpretation and thereby robbing it of all value and validity.

Everything uttered comes in the form of language, which is an artifice used by fallible humans. Such speech reflects the fallibility and perceptions fo the speaker and of the recipient.

It is nice that you have resorted to ad hominem attack when the force of your logic is underwhelming.

Nothing is devoid of interpretation.