Mark Jarvis

As for having visited my Elders Quorum one Sunday, I’m stumped. Was it the week I taught, the week I was sustained as president, or the week I blessed the Sacrament in the absence of the priests? Or if you meant (it’s impossible to sort out the garble) that you were visiting this coming Sunday, do introduce yourself, please. You’ll recognize me as the only Elders Quorum member wearing a dress.

Bye-bye, and heaven bless the seminary students in your ward.

Also, in comment 19, it should be 1884, not a century later. Sorry for the late correction…

So who’s the false prophet? Or is it just me?

But I can make two points here that may be worth noting.

First, think of a blog as a conversation between friends. Entering a conversation with fists flying (metaphorically speaking) would probably result in everyone involved in the conversation turning to look at you with disbelief, and perhaps asking you to leave. It’s much politer to introduce yourself and get acquainted with the people involved in the conversation, making comments from time to time, and ask (polite!) questions as necessary. It’s always nice to see new faces and hear new opinions!

Second, I don’t know if I’ve ever disagreed with Ardis in any substantial way, but to know that there is a professional historian working as intimately with the source material of the church as she does, and that she is still a practicing, believing member of the church and has not lost sight of the divinity of the work, is a valuable thing.

Whichever is the case, we already have one Researcher here, and it could get awfully confusing to start calling others that. : )

As to “line upon line, precept upon precept” I would add the apostle’s “now we see through a glass darkly” and just for good measure throw in some general commentary on the way in which revelation is received–in response to questions and after studying it out in your mind, usw.

I’m not even going to make a snarky comment about visitations by Angles–next it’ll be ancient Picts and Saxons and, who knows, Leif Ericson himself.

I must say, I’m totally impressed by the fact that you went ahead and posted my responses to your post. I was a bit unsurprised, but you bought back some cred points by going ahead and posting my responses. Good on ya.

“claims to be a seminary teacher”
Yup. Done that. Early morning for 5 years now. I totally get line upon line and precept upon precept, but am amazed at how we apply it to some doctrines, teachings, history tidbits and then ignore it on other important areas.

Personally, I’m in favor of consistency of thought and logic. It was to your original point and the purpose of this thread. That if we were to learn from Pres Woodruff teaching us new doctrines about something from 50 years earlier, than and 3 prophets later than we need to see if that concept of learning can be applied in other areas of the gospel. It is in that area that it starts to fall apart.

As members, we have an amazing amount of faith, but we also need to realize when we are looking for parallels that do not exist. We are so convinced that we have “The Truth”, that we are willing to use any plausible reason to justify the final. Even if it doesn’t make sense. This, in my humble opinion (if a seminary teacher can be humble) is something that we should not do.

I just did stumble upon your blog and I’m 100% a newbie here. Thanks for letting me disagree with you. We are all part of the greater whole and don’t have to agree. See ya on Sunday!

What do you propose as the answer to your questions, Found at Last? Come on, be blunt. For the record.

Now compare that to either polygamy or the priesthood restriction and it is a very different prospect. Church leaders had invested a lot of institutional capital to maintain the position with emphatic statements, little confusion, and wide understanding.