When will D&C 132 be removed or modified?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It is better than one man perish than an entire nation perish and dwindle in unbelief.

You're really good at one sentence vignettes and hit and run tactics. Try sticking around to develop a discussion.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're really good at one sentence vignettes and hit and run tactics. Try sticking around to develop a discussion.

That's a dead-on description of Lebowski, but I don't see you criticizing him.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

That's a dead-on description of Lebowski, but I don't see you criticizing him.

Jeff will analyze, but Indy does it so infrequently we could time ice ages between his analysis and his hit and run posts.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

That's a dead-on description of Lebowski, but I don't see you criticizing him.

I don't understand this criticism of Lebowski. I admittedly do not read all of these posts, but Jeff is a bright guy and has proved to me many times over that he is a capable debater. What am I missing?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Jeff will analyze, but Indy does it so infrequently we could time ice ages between his analysis and his hit and run posts.

Sometimes, it's better to encapsulate a point in a sentence or two, rather than bloviate. I made a couple of very succinct counters to SoonerCoug, taking issue with specific points he was making.

Lebowski's comments are all too often more of the "LOL. Excellent." variety that offers nothing in the way of direct response to the topic at hand; succinctly or not.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I don't understand this criticism of Lebowski. I admittedly do not read all of these posts, but Jeff is a bright guy and has proved to me many times over that he is a capable debater. What am I missing?

Thanks Steel. But don't worry about it. The only ones beating this drum are Indy and Lingo. Indy even went so far as to declare that I am "intellectually impotent". I still chuckle about that one.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It is better than one man perish than an entire nation perish and dwindle in unbelief.

The great irony of Mormonism is that the highest leaders have much less of a literalist approach than the average member.

One of the most shocking, eye-opening experiences of my life was when Elder Ballard came to the MTC and the missionaries around me kept saying: "We're standing 20 feet away from a person who has seen and touched Jesus Christ!" My first thought was: "Wow. You guys are nuts. I had no idea there were people like you in this religion."

President Hunter always openly proclaimed that his revelation came by the still small voice, just like it comes to the average member.

President Kimball was my dad's uncle, and my dad was very close to him personally. My dad came to understand quite clearly that President Kimball's experiences were just like President Hunter described. President Kimball also discussed the blacks and the priesthood issue with the family, including extended family, for many, many years prior to changing the policy. But it was definitely a policy that he set out to change, as he was very sensitive to racial discrimination issues. It wasn't something mystical or magical that this "revelation" came to him.

Brigham Young struggled himself because he admitted that he was unable to receive visions like Joseph Smith did, and for quite some time, he felt that he was not a prophet as Joseph was.

These are fallible, good, inspired prophets.

Mormonism is about searching for truth and thinking and discussing and praying. It's not about blind acceptance. Having fantasies about our leaders chit-chatting with God face to face or dreaming that the words of the prophets are somehow directly the voice of God... I just don't see any reason to take this kind of attitude toward the prophets.

I believe in listening to them and praying and striving to heed their counsel, but I don't believe in interpreting their words as the literal word of God.

Tex thinks my attitude is a threat to Mormonism. I think his attitude is more of a threat, because it's a precarious testimony that relies on a literal interpretation and denies the facts. I hate to break it to you, Tex, but there simply weren't elephants and horses in the Americas in precolumbian times.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

The great irony of Mormonism is that the highest leaders have much less of a literalist approach than the average member.

One of the most shocking, eye-opening experiences of my life was when Elder Ballard came to the MTC and the missionaries around me kept saying: "We're standing 20 feet away from a person who has seen and touched Jesus Christ!" My first thought was: "Wow. You guys are nuts. I had no idea there were people like you in this religion."

President Hunter always openly proclaimed that his revelation came by the still small voice, just like it comes to the average member.

President Kimball was my dad's uncle, and my dad was very close to him personally. My dad came to understand quite clearly that President Kimball's experiences were just like President Hunter described. President Kimball also discussed the blacks and the priesthood issue with the family, including extended family, for many, many years prior to changing the policy. But it was definitely a policy that he set out to change, as he was very sensitive to racial discrimination issues. It wasn't something mystical or magical that this "revelation" came to him.

Brigham Young struggled himself because he admitted that he was unable to receive visions like Joseph Smith did, and for quite some time, he felt that he was not a prophet as Joseph was.

These are fallible, good, inspired prophets.

Mormonism is about searching for truth and thinking and discussing and praying. It's not about blind acceptance. Having fantasies about our leaders chit-chatting with God face to face or dreaming that the words of the prophets are somehow directly the voice of God... I just don't see any reason to take this kind of attitude toward the prophets.

I believe in listening to them and praying and striving to heed their counsel, but I don't believe in interpreting their words as the literal word of God.

Tex thinks my attitude is a threat to Mormonism. I think his attitude is more of a threat, because it's a precarious testimony that relies on a literal interpretation and denies the facts. I hate to break it to you, Tex, but there simply weren't elephants and horses in the Americas in precolumbian times.

I'm not sure where you get that I don't think that prophets are human beings, or that revelation must be accompanied by thunderclap. Moreover, I don't see how any of this has to do with your willingness to reject a scripture because it doesn't meet with your pre-conceived notions of God.

I am keenly interested in exactly how you've come about this personal theology. Please tell me how is it that you determine which passages are truly God-inspired and which aren't? Is there some independent methodology of which I'm not aware? Does the Spirit tell you?

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

One of the most shocking, eye-opening experiences of my life was when Elder Ballard came to the MTC and the missionaries around me kept saying: "We're standing 20 feet away from a person who has seen and touched Jesus Christ!" My first thought was: "Wow. You guys are nuts. I had no idea there were people like you in this religion."

I don't believe those called into the Twelve constantly receive direction directly from Jesus. But they're not called Special Witnesses of Christ for nothing.

Tex thinks my attitude is a threat to Mormonism. I think his attitude is more of a threat, because it's a precarious testimony that relies on a literal interpretation and denies the facts. I hate to break it to you, Tex, but there simply weren't elephants and horses in the Americas in precolumbian times.

I'm impressed... you have the power to prove a negative.

[fusnik11]

The first prophets and apostles of the restoration were expected to have experiences in which they saw God.

As far as prophets saying they have seen God, the only one's I know explicitly of saying they saw God are Joseph Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Hugh Brown and possibly Boyd K. Packer. Heber J. Grant may have had an experience where he saw the Lord, he intimates that he went down into the trees by himself, and emerged without any doubts.

I have personally heard three prophets say they know, and no longer have faith, that Jesus lives.