What exactly did he mean by "space"?LDSConservative wrote:The problem with that reasoning is that perhaps you forget that he also said "We will never get a man into space"...
I don't pretend to know, but it's an interesting question.
What exactly did he mean by "space"?LDSConservative wrote:The problem with that reasoning is that perhaps you forget that he also said "We will never get a man into space"...
Where can we verify the exact wording of then apostle JFS's moon comment? I see that jonnybreeves quoted it (the first post of this thread) but he didn't say where he got the quote from.
Just curious.
Mark wrote:Well that takes care of it for me. Some bird named Penguine wrote it in Yahoo answers. It must be true.
Mark wrote:Just playin around Doz. I would like to see some kind of official verification though. As the gipper said: Trust, but Verify.
Most likely you'll find this in the records of the Church, so who wants to go to the Church archives/library and make a photo copy of this talk and post it on the forum? (too bad lundaek's not in SLC anymore, he was very good at doing that)Where can we verify the exact wording of then apostle JFS's moon comment?
Post by DayofAwakening »
Post by DayofAwakening »
The worlds are all still inhabited. Most people are inside though, through the polar openings or "Mouths" of the planets. The Lost tribes are in our planet's polar opening. Planets should be discribed as a toroidal spherical as a shape instead of a just a sphere. There is MUCH evidence to support this. I'll have to start a new topic for this.. The world is not what THEY tell you it is..Google, "moon has ice." Then Google, "Mercury has polar ice caps"joseph wrote:I watched all of the videos, but I am still not convinced. It is important to discuss these things. I am puzzled by the closed minds who quickly dismiss "conspiracies" and ridicule those who talk about them.
Cowell, you have given me food for thought. The myth busters flag video is interesting. Thank you.
I believe that Mars was very recently inhabited. There are more to Father's Kingdom than we could even begin to imagine.
mchlwise, it depends on what the definition of "is" is...mchlwise wrote: What exactly did he mean by "space"?
And did you believe Bruce R. McConkie when he said that the Negro would never get the Priesthood in this eternity? Because not only did he write it down, he used words of Brigham Young when he was the Prophet and President of the Church to back his assertion up. His words are there in black and white, and they are wrong. They were as wrong when President Young spoke them as they were when Elder McConkie wrote them. Time has shown them to be wrong. It doesn't mean they weren't apostles or prophets called of God, just that they made a mistake in what they said.DOZ wrote:Eeeeesh! I believe the apostles. When they speak, I hear, listen, obey and Believe!
Only a couple. I've seen most of this stuff before, and I didn't buy it then any more than I do now. Having a father who worked for NASA, the smartest man I've ever known, I tend to accept his knowledge and experience much more than some of the originators of some of these sites, many of whom can be well-rationed men. Of course there's a lot of them who didn't wear enough tin foil in their hats. I'm not saying everyone denying the moon landings is a nutcase, but there do seem to be a considerable amount of them in that group.Cowell wrote:Skmo, have you looked at the evidence in the links a few of us have provided?
This is taken from another LDS chat website:ithink wrote:Stick to the canonized standard works folks, because all the rest just might dry up and blow away in the wind. I won't hold them to their every word any more than I would want to be held to mine if I were in their shoes. In other words, mistakes are made, but we go on anyway.
If David O. McKay, the President of the LDS Church had wanted this information to go to the church members, he would have given it himself.May 13, 2004
To: General Authorities; Area Authority Seventies; Stake, Mission, and District Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents
(To be read in sacrament meeting)
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
Statements Attributed to Church Leaders
From time to time statements are circulated among members which are inaccurately attributed to the leaders of the Church. Many such statements distort current Church teachings and are often based on rumors and innuendos. They are never transmitted officially, but by word of mouth, e-mail, or other informal means.
We encourage members of the Church to never teach or pass on such statements without verifying that they are from approved sources, such as official statements, communications, and publications. Any notes made when General Authorities, Area Authority Seventies, or other general Church officers speak at regional and stake conferences or other meetings should not be distributed without the consent of the speaker. Personal notes are for individual use only.
True spiritual growth is based on studying the scriptures, the teachings of the Brethren, and Church publications.
Sincerely your brethren,
Gordon B. Hinckley
Thomas S. Monson
James E. Faust
The First Presidency
==================
Additional Clarification from the office of the first presidency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I called and asked for the office of the first presidency.
I spoke briefly with the secretary who answered the phone.
She was well aware of the letter I referenced. Here are the answers:
1) Is this policy limited to certain types of meetings (e.g. stake conference, private leadership meetings, private firesides, etc.) or is it a general policy in effect any time a church authority speaks?
The request from the first presidency applies to all situations where general church officers, members of the seventy, general authorities, or apostles are speaking in public or private settings.
2) May we share the notes and comments if we remove the name and location of the person who made the comments?
Absolutely not. In many ways, this is worse than sharing the notes with a name and location attached, since it fuels further speculation about who might have said it. The directive very clearly states that ANY notes taken should be not distributed, regardless of any editing that is done, or any names or locations that might be left out. The brethren are deeply concerned about the rumors being spread and editing out names makes the problem worse, not better.
3) May we share the notes and comments if we remove any implication that the comments were made by an authority or a church leader?
Again, absolutely not. The notes should remain private and in the hands of the individual who took the notes. They should not be shared or distributed, especially on the internet. They are for personal use only.
4) If a friend verbally tells us their notes, may we share those (assuming we remove the source) ?
Again, no.
5) If we have an audio recording or an exact transcription of the talk, may we share that? With or without their name and location attached?
The church prefers to remain the distribution channel for such things. Unofficial transcripts or recordings should remain in the hands of the person who took them and should not be distributed or copied with the consent of the speaker.
Working on it as slowly as I can. My summer break ends in less than two weeks, as teacher work days begin on the 17th and we get students on the 20th. Man, school would be SO much easier if we didn't have to deal with those pesky students!Mark wrote:...Get your rest while you can iceman.
Did Bruce R McConkie really say that?...I didn't know I also heard another story about him that he said the great and abominable church of the devil was the catholic church and he had to apologize for saying that,now, it is true? don't know and I don't care, no one can show me the article or source exactly like what JFS supposedly said.skmo wrote:And did you believe Bruce R. McConkie when he said that the Negro would never get the Priesthood in this eternity? Because not only did he write it down, he used words of Brigham Young when he was the Prophet and President of the Church to back his assertion up. His words are there in black and white, and they are wrong. They were as wrong when President Young spoke them as they were when Elder McConkie wrote them. Time has shown them to be wrong. It doesn't mean they weren't apostles or prophets called of God, just that they made a mistake in what they said.DOZ wrote:Eeeeesh! I believe the apostles. When they speak, I hear, listen, obey and Believe!
I don't mean in any way to say I don't fully support any and all of the leaders of the Church, especially the Apostles and Prophets. Probably most of my first ten posts on this website were spent arguing (ironically enough, with the original poster of this topic) about whether or not he was rebelling against the Church Leaders! I support and sustain all the leaders of the LDS Church all the way from President Thomas S. Monson to my Branch President. I also believe that, rare as it may be, they may from time to time, say something that is incorrect. The only person EVER on this earth incapable of being or saying anything wrong was Jesus Christ. I would never question a Prophet who said he was speaking on behalf of The Lord, and if I were told to walk through fire by President Monson because The Lord asked me to I would. If it meant that I were to die it would be because that's what God wanted. However, as rare as it may be, even the most just and holy men can make mistakes. It has happened all throughout the scriptures. Moses did, Nephi did, Joseph Smith did, am I to believe that anyone in this dispensation is less susceptible to error than Joseph Smith? Yet he readily admitted that he made mistakes, but that when directed by God no prophet in our time would do so. I believe and trust in that. It doesn't change the fact that all of us, even apostles and prophets, are human.
Yeah. We've been to the moon.
I know you are Mark and I really laughed at your answer, it was a good heart felt laughMark wrote:Just playin around Doz. I would like to see some kind of official verification though. As the gipper said: Trust, but Verify.
I know you are Mark and I really laughed at your answer, it was a good heart felt laugh
Okay, so maybe Michael Jackson has walked on the moon, but...shadow wrote:If we haven't been to the moon then where did this move come from??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_3v-_p3ESo
So...let me get this straight...if you walk on the moon...you walk backwards????LDSConservative wrote:Okay, so maybe Michael Jackson has walked on the moon, but...shadow wrote:If we haven't been to the moon then where did this move come from??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_3v-_p3ESo
Thanks skmo, but perhaps we should all disregard all the information you added that came from the secretary, since it is not an official church distribution channel. But then again, upon closer inspection, the memo from the office of the First Presidency refers to "inaccurately attributed to the leaders of the Church". So, if any statement can be accurately attributed to a leader of the church, it clearly is fair game. So email away all your quotes, making sure to retain accurate citation and you are good to go.skmo wrote:This is taken from another LDS chat website:ithink wrote:Stick to the canonized standard works folks, because all the rest just might dry up and blow away in the wind. I won't hold them to their every word any more than I would want to be held to mine if I were in their shoes. In other words, mistakes are made, but we go on anyway.
If David O. McKay, the President of the LDS Church had wanted this information to go to the church members, he would have given it himself.May 13, 2004
To: General Authorities; Area Authority Seventies; Stake, Mission, and District Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents
(To be read in sacrament meeting)
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
Statements Attributed to Church Leaders
From time to time statements are circulated among members which are inaccurately attributed to the leaders of the Church. Many such statements distort current Church teachings and are often based on rumors and innuendos. They are never transmitted officially, but by word of mouth, e-mail, or other informal means.
We encourage members of the Church to never teach or pass on such statements without verifying that they are from approved sources, such as official statements, communications, and publications. Any notes made when General Authorities, Area Authority Seventies, or other general Church officers speak at regional and stake conferences or other meetings should not be distributed without the consent of the speaker. Personal notes are for individual use only.
True spiritual growth is based on studying the scriptures, the teachings of the Brethren, and Church publications.
Sincerely your brethren,
Gordon B. Hinckley
Thomas S. Monson
James E. Faust
The First Presidency
==================
Additional Clarification from the office of the first presidency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I called and asked for the office of the first presidency.
I spoke briefly with the secretary who answered the phone.
She was well aware of the letter I referenced. Here are the answers:
1) Is this policy limited to certain types of meetings (e.g. stake conference, private leadership meetings, private firesides, etc.) or is it a general policy in effect any time a church authority speaks?
The request from the first presidency applies to all situations where general church officers, members of the seventy, general authorities, or apostles are speaking in public or private settings.
2) May we share the notes and comments if we remove the name and location of the person who made the comments?
Absolutely not. In many ways, this is worse than sharing the notes with a name and location attached, since it fuels further speculation about who might have said it. The directive very clearly states that ANY notes taken should be not distributed, regardless of any editing that is done, or any names or locations that might be left out. The brethren are deeply concerned about the rumors being spread and editing out names makes the problem worse, not better.
3) May we share the notes and comments if we remove any implication that the comments were made by an authority or a church leader?
Again, absolutely not. The notes should remain private and in the hands of the individual who took the notes. They should not be shared or distributed, especially on the internet. They are for personal use only.
4) If a friend verbally tells us their notes, may we share those (assuming we remove the source) ?
Again, no.
5) If we have an audio recording or an exact transcription of the talk, may we share that? With or without their name and location attached?
The church prefers to remain the distribution channel for such things. Unofficial transcripts or recordings should remain in the hands of the person who took them and should not be distributed or copied with the consent of the speaker.
"Yeah, We've been to the moon"...You looked at a couple of the links...Your father is a smart man who worked at NASA...Tin foil hats...A considerable amount of nutcases deny the moon landings...Agree to disagree?skmo wrote: Yeah. We've been to the moon.Only a couple. I've seen most of this stuff before, and I didn't buy it then any more than I do now. Having a father who worked for NASA, the smartest man I've ever known, I tend to accept his knowledge and experience much more than some of the originators of some of these sites, many of whom can be well-rationed men. Of course there's a lot of them who didn't wear enough tin foil in their hats. I'm not saying everyone denying the moon landings is a nutcase, but there do seem to be a considerable amount of them in that group.Cowell wrote:Skmo, have you looked at the evidence in the links a few of us have provided?
I make no dispersions of anyone on this board at all of being such, and I do honestly mean that. We just agree to disagree.
LDSFreedomForum.com and its admin / moderators do not necessarily agree with all content posted by users of this forum.
The views and content on this site reflect only the opinions and teachings of the authors of the respective content contained herein.