Originally posted by creekster
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News
Collapse
X
-
Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.
"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
-
Originally posted by creekster View PostThe revelation was in the D&C, which is linked through the church's statement, where God DID reveal the name of the church. All the Prophet here is saying is that he has been impressed with the importance of that earlier revelation.
In looking at the style guide, I don't see too much that should be a problem except for the request not to call members Mormons and to not refer to Mormonism. It's fine to ask that the chiurch's actual name be used when referring to the church, but I think the use of the terms "mormon" and :"mormonism" are so efficient and entrenched (its not only a nickname chosen for us, it is the nickname we chose to use) that I cant see the reference disappearing. But nothing in either the statement or the guide says this is a revelation. To the contrary, it distinguishes the revelation, which is in the D&C, from the statement, which is an impression.
Comment
-
Originally posted by falafel View PostUh, this seems a little nit picky. Impressions don't count as revelations? God can't issue another revelation on a topic he has already spoken to another prophet about? Instead, the new prophet just gets an "impression" with a scripture citation?PLesa excuse the tpyos.
Comment
-
I remember eye-rolling at Ballard’s 2911 talk also. I can’t recall the exact words, but it I seem to recall that he ended with the sentiment that we shouldn’t call ourselves Mormon, but it’s ok to still be referred as one. It was just a big head scratcher.
And like BG, I don’t understand giving sanction using another approved ‘abbreviation’. If it is direct revelation that we should use the full name and stop using a nickname, why is it OK to use another one? It’s just kind of weird. If this is a rebranding move to distance members away from negative connotations of ‘mormon’, good luck. The members themselves are proud to call themselves Mormon.
Also, I’d bet the majority of members would call the prophet using the phrase ‘the Lord has impressed upon my mind’ direct revelation. How is it not?"...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUte
Comment
-
Originally posted by creekster View PostNit picky? It is a pretty clear and obvious distinction in my mind. An impression is like inspiration. It is a form of revelation in the sense that you have more fully discerned God's will, but it is not the equivalent of revealed scripture, such as the D&C. Or are you one of those people who thinks anything the sitting prophet utters is equivalent to revealed scripture?Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.
"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostI remember eye-rolling at Ballard’s 2911 talk also. I can’t recall the exact words, but it I seem to recall that he ended with the sentiment that we shouldn’t call ourselves Mormon, but it’s ok to still be referred as one. It was just a big head scratcher.
And like BG, I don’t understand giving sanction using another approved ‘abbreviation’. If it is direct revelation that we should use the full name and stop using a nickname, why is it OK to use another one? It’s just kind of weird. If this is a rebranding move to distance members away from negative connotations of ‘mormon’, good luck. The members themselves are proud to call themselves Mormon.
Also, I’d bet the majority of members would call the prophet using the phrase ‘the Lord has impressed upon my mind’ direct revelation. How is it not?Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.
"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Anyone interested in going to a showing of Meet the Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the Legacy Theater tomorrow?
https://www.lds.org/church/events/te...rmons?lang=engAs I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
--Kendrick Lamar
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
Also, I’d bet the majority of members would call the prophet using the phrase ‘the Lord has impressed upon my mind’ direct revelation. How is it not?PLesa excuse the tpyos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by creekster View PostI guess you don't like nuance very much? It is direct, in the sense that it is from God/the spirit to one person, the prophet. It is revelation, in the sense that God has shown his will more clearly. Thus, some aspect of God's will was directly revealed. But is is not the same as a "Thus saith the Lord" entry into scripture. Not only does this stand to reason, but he makes this very clear distinction in his own statement. There is obviously a question of how much difference exists between those two, as Falafel has pointed out. Personally, I see them as almost opposite ends of a spectrum. Here all the Prophet seems to be saying is that he got the feeling that we really need to do a much more complete job of implementing GOd's will as revealed long ago in the D&C. The revelation was the name for the church that God asked us to use. The impression is that we need to follow that revelation more fully. The result is a policy as expressed in the style guide. By the time we get to the style guide, we are at least two steps away from a scriptural revelation.Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.
"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by falafel View PostThe thing that sucks about your spectrum is that it means we haven't had "scriptural revelation" in forever. But I'm willing to be that even you would agree that we've had plenty of high-level revelation since the last section of the D&C was added.Last edited by creekster; 08-17-2018, 11:58 AM.PLesa excuse the tpyos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by creekster View PostI guess you don't like nuance very much? It is direct, in the sense that it is from God/the spirit to one person, the prophet. It is revelation, in the sense that God has shown his will more clearly. Thus, some aspect of God's will was directly revealed. But is is not the same as a "Thus saith the Lord" entry into scripture. Not only does this stand to reason, but he makes this very clear distinction in his own statement. There is obviously a question of how much difference exists between those two, as Falafel has pointed out. Personally, I see them as almost opposite ends of a spectrum. Here all the Prophet seems to be saying is that he got the feeling that we really need to do a much more complete job of implementing GOd's will as revealed long ago in the D&C. The revelation was the name for the church that God asked us to use. The impression is that we need to follow that revelation more fully. The result is a policy as expressed in the style guide. By the time we get to the style guide, we are at least two steps away from a scriptural revelation."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUte
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostI ooze nuance, bro. My point was that I think most members who hear that phrase coming from a prophet would see no distinction between ‘thus saith the lord’-type revelation and the inspiration you’re talking about. I’ve seen members call less direct language from a prophet revelation. If he had said, ‘I feel impressed...’, then I’d be down with this tortured argument we’re having. But again, the prophet for the whole church said the Lord impressed him. Maybe here I am less nuanced, but there’s not a lot of difference between that and ‘thus saith...’. Just style, really.
"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Originally posted by SCcoug View Postfify"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
Comment