Many of The teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, right up to the relatively recent prophets, including "the miracle of forgiveness" but Spencer W Kimball, have been ignored or even Rejected by the current leadership of the church.

President Monson is likely to be the first president to have none of his teachings repudiated. The reason is not that he is such an inspired leader, but that I can't think of any doctrinal pronouncement that he has ever made. Seriously, can you think of anything of substance that he has ever said officially. There will be nothing in his wake that will be substantiative enough to be worth repudiating.

I would love for any of you to show me where I'm wrong. If he has said anything doctrinal, theological, clarified any history, anything possibly controversy oh, anything… Please correct me.

Disavow? They'd have to acknowledge him first.

Gaybies. He will be disavowed when they let all children be baptized regardless of their parent's marital status or sexual orientation.

Agreed. He will be lumped in when they disavow "all the leaders" how discriminated against LGBT individuals.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gaybies. He will be disavowed when they let all
> children be baptized regardless of their parent's
> marital status or sexual orientation.


I guess he was the Prophet during this policy change but he didn't publicly say anything about it.

TSM: Boring Beyond Description


somehow, I'd rather go back to GBH, but I'd get a bit less sleep...

First pic i saw of the bugger....i thot what the hells that evil eyed booger doing in leadership...evil sinister dead eyes...not sure how he kept all those widows from spilling the beans...maybe discernment helped him figger the ones who wouldnt squeal...naw...not one thing i can think of hes ever said of consequence...just a bunch of light weight drivel...must a hit a money train somewhere...800 k cars arent something every dipstick gets to drive...must a thought he was fairly important or hed pissed the wrong guys off....whod wanna whack count chocula?

The church will never officially disavow any of its past church presidents. An anonymous author on the church website is as close as it will ever get. Even then, the disavowel will come in the form of several lofty sounding paragraphs using duplistic words, some of which will conflict and create different messages, depending on how you choose to intrepet them. The church will never come out (for example) and say that "Brigham Young was a fallen prophet".

Supposedly, Peter James and John came down and ordained Joseph Smith to the melchesedik priesthood and made him the president of the church. If any prophet that followed JS fell from grace, then the chain of authority would be broken and the current prophet would lack any priesthood authority. The church won't let that happen (truth be damned).

I agree, Oaks has said the church doesn't apologize. Someone else, like God, will take the blame for the policy. Think of Kimball's 1978 "revelation" of pleading with the Lord. Boner.

I think Oaks was just warning members of what was to come when he's on the throne.

That little ass won't be apologizing for anything. You know, kind of like Hitler and his minions.

Monson became church president in February 2008.

Tom Phillips has reported on the Fraud Act of 2006 in England.

I bet the COB lawyers, being well aware of that act, got to TSM to be careful of whatever he proclaims publically. You've got to protect TSCC from liability. Just...Maybe?

Monson owns all the assets! So they get stupid volunteers to teach all the doctrines he won't even touch.

And did you notice that Holland was recruiting new gods in Tempe, Arizona, USA? He'd never try that in England.

Indeed. Holland was pushing the "We Become God's Doctrine" - hard and firm. He was relentless in teaching "We're God's in Embryo." I suspect that if Holland were to become president of TSCC, he would be instructed by COB lawyers to only give milky, watered-down, non-doctrinal, story-telling speeches. He'll have to make a sudden turn in tone and content of his pronouncements and start to sound just like Monson.

Maybe that's why Bednar is so 'over-the-top' with his ultra doctrinal rhetoric as an apostle -- do it now, so to speak, before he becomes CEO and president and has the lawyers tell him to: back-off, tell milky white speeches and just give cotton-candy stories.

Any one (or all) of the 15 can be prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006 if their untrue statements are received in England or Wales by any means (e.g. internet, youtube, printed material etc.).

Provided all the conditions of the Act are met.

Interesting pattern. The "head" is beyond public reproach and yet his tentacles, all 14 of them, can run about the country and the world talking and talking about every doctrine.

Octoprofit. It fits because this creature is made up of a lot of octogenarians.

It would be great to see all of the top 15 get summonses from the UK and choose not to go and then they all end up being fugitives in the UK. I wonder if the UK would then start seizing church assets, and closing ward and stake centers, shutting down fulltime missions, temples, etc..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2016 10:04AM by azsteve.

If that did happen, that would be such a PR disaster for the church I could see it completely falling apart. There's millions (billions?) of dollars of church property in England, and hundreds of thousands of members.

That would be a huge loss. Is that likely to happen? I'm not completely familiar with the case, and it doesn't seem like it's gotten a ton of press, at least stateside. Could be wrong about that.