LDS Church pushes back at spurious claims of imminent apocalypse.

[rewcox]

Then RewCox says that the prophet only receives revelations.

The Prophet then says this:

Chairman: "You have revelations, have you not?"
Joseph F Smith: "I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations."

rewcox did not say that. Read the Book of Mormon and pay attention. You takes quotes out of context, you can believe and follow what you will.

[Zathura]

Then RewCox says that the prophet only receives revelations.

The Prophet then says this:

Chairman: "You have revelations, have you not?"
Joseph F Smith: "I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations."

rewcox did not say that. Read the Book of Mormon and pay attention. You takes quotes out of context, you can believe and follow what you will.

What did I take out of context?

Joseph F Smith said he never professed to received a revelation.

[rewcox]

Then RewCox says that the prophet only receives revelations.

The Prophet then says this:

Chairman: "You have revelations, have you not?"
Joseph F Smith: "I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations."

rewcox did not say that. Read the Book of Mormon and pay attention. You takes quotes out of context, you can believe and follow what you will.

What did I take out of context?

Joseph F Smith said he never professed to received a revelation.

Give the full context and story. He didn't profess because he did receive.

[Stacy Oliver]

Joseph F. Smith was passively refusing to answer their questions.

Q: Have you received any individual revelations yourself, since you became president of the church under your own definition, even, of a revelation?
A: I can not say that I have.
Q: Can you say that you have not?
A: No, I can not say that I have not.

I think it's obvious what he was doing. And it was not saying "No."

[Ben_Jamin]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/m ... er-29-2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've posted this to clarify why the church made the statement* they did about last minute preparations, or rather, my opinion of why they did.

*(Not the statement referring to the spurious nature of JR's book in seminaries/institutes)

The church DID NOT deny the possibility of catestrophic events from happening, they did, however say that members have been admonished for DECADES to be prepared for whatever may come, and that members shouldn't have to be caught up in these whirlwind preparations to begin with, because they should have already been prepared.

They also said that the detailed personal accounts of the tribulations before the coming of Christ should be taken as such, personal accounts.

"This misinterpretation by the Associated Press that the statement was to reassure members rather than to correct misinformation."

[Zathura]

My goodness it really riles people up.
Interesting seeing how people justify things.

[Zathura]

Imagine if Spencer or Julie used this wording. "I've never pretended to receive revelation" imagine how much these sheep would attack them and call them liars, servants of satan.

Majority of my comments are to test and see how people react. Mormons try so hard to justify anything that proves something they say wrong.

Smh.

[BTH&T]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/m ... er-29-2015


"This misinterpretation by the Associated Press that the statement was to reassure members rather than to correct misinformation."

Great post!

Wish many that have been bashing Julie Rowe would read this the way it is written.


Direct quote from the Church:
"Earlier this month a story in The Salt Lake Tribune reported how the writings of one Mormon woman were prompting "some Mormons" to prepare for catastrophic events. The news hook for the story was a short memo issued internally to the Church's seminaries and institutes reminding instructors that this individual’s writings were not to be taught as Church doctrine.
While such a memo does represent a note of caution to those teaching young people,
the news media stretched the story to make it much larger than it deserved."


I am very disappointed in many of my fellow posters for their actions as of late in regards to anything to do with Julie Rowe.

So much contention, anger and misinformation with someone that is a sister in the Gospel. Whether you agree or not, be more civil.

[Stacy Oliver]

Saying "I've never pretended" isn't saying no. In fact, he states several times in that same hearing that he DID receive revelations.

Just a few questions after saying "I've never pretended," he was asked,

Q: Did Joseph Smith contend that always there was a visible appearance of the Almighty or of an angel?
A: No, sir; he did not.
Q: How otherwise did he claim to receive revelations?
A: By the spirit of the Lord.
Q: And in that way, such revelations as you have receive, you have had them?
A: Yes, sir.

He later said, "I have had impressions of the Spirit upon my mind very frequently, but they are not in the sense revelations."

Throughout the hearings, the apostles struggled to use precise terminology while also keeping many things sacred. For example, B.H. Roberts was asked if the Manifesto was a revelation and he said no. Then just a few lines later, he said, "President Woodruff ... was inspired of the spirit of the Lord to take that course." Francis Lyman was asked about revelation to the church and he said," What President Smith does as the president of this church he does by the direction of the spirit of the Lord, not a written revelation."

[Sunain]

I think the article needed a couple more paragraphs explaining the full situation for the average member of the church that comes across that post. I don't think the newsroom post completely cleared up any of the issues regarding the sensationalization and the spin that these articles generated in the media. I really hope someone addresses it at General Conference this week.