posted
A. Part of the importance of modern prophets is the ability to clarify points of doctrine. While the Bible is believed to be the word of God, we cannot guarantee that it has remained unchanged through translation issues. The Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are believed to be free of translation errors that may be present in the Bible.
B. Mormon was the prophet who was the major editor/redactor of the Book of Mormon (the Book of Mormon being a collection of writings and excerpts from other prophets). The Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith (who established the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Because of the inclusion of the Book of Mormon in the cannon, we are often referred to as Mormons.
C. The Apocrypha are not considered part of the cannon, though they may be enlightening to one who reads "with the Spirit" (see Doctrine and Covenants, section 91)
D. We view the members of the Trinity as distinct and separate persons, working together but each playing differing roles. God the Father is our Spiritual Father and who we refer to as God. We believe God has a perfected physical body. Jesus Christ is his son (physical and spiritual) and our Savior (and again possesses a perfected physical body). The Holy Spirit (also called the Holy Ghost) bears witness of God and Jesus Christ and has a spirit (rather than physical body).
E. As I see it, Jesus was 100% man - he was a physical person susceptible to all the same pains and foibles as any of us. Because of his divine parentage (the 100% God), and through his choices (not giving in to temptations the rest of us do), he became something more than man. Could he have made mistakes? I think that yes, to be fully human, there had to be the opportunity for failure. However, he became the sinless sacrifice that allows us to be cleansed from sin, making it possible to return to be with God.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What happens if say, a verse from 'The Pearl of Great Price' contradicts the Bible? Or, what if it contradicts The Book of Mormon?
As other have said, we consider the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price to be equally canonical.
As you have not defined what you mean by "contradiction", I'll just say that we believe the Scriptures as far as they are translated correctly. We also believe in seeking God's guidance to properly understand them.
Where do you get the term Morman? Wasn't the guy's name Joseph Smith?
The proper name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints. "Mormon" was a nickname given to the church many years ago because we believe in the Book of Mormon.
What is the position about the Apocrypha? Are they considered a part of the Biblical Canon?
The Apocrypha is not included in the LDS printings of the KJV of the Bible, but the books are considered to have some merit. However, this merit is also believed by the church to be mixed in with much that came from man instead of God.
What are your views on the trinity?
The LDS Church believes in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. However, we believe them to be separate, distinct beings who are one in knowledge, love, and power...yet not one physically.
What are your views on the whole 'Jesus was God come in the flesh', 100% God, 100% man thing? We believe that Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be, the literal Son of God, divine in nature...yet at the same time, in his earthly life he was subject to the same things all mortals are subject to.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for contradictions, it depends on what you mean. However, using the benefit of the doubt meaning, I would say Mormons are far less prone to think of the Scriptures as perfect. If there are mistakes or contradictions, Mormons tend to logically reconcile them. If they can't then they assume the completeness of the info is not available to mortals.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If you tell me you've never thrown it in their face, or at least criticized them for it, I'll believe you...but generally speaking, most people do find ways to let people know when they disapprove of their behavior. Too judgemental being no exception.
It's my dad (and my mother-in-law). I would never call him out that way. The fact is, there are many things that I disagree with him (and the Southern Baptist Convention) about, but why pick those fights. I'm not going to change his (or their) mind, so why bother.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
[i] Where do you get the term Morman? Wasn't the guy's name Joseph Smith?
The proper name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints. "Mormon" was a nickname given to the church many years ago because we believe in the Book of Mormon.
Yikes. I'm sorry... Is using the word 'Morman' considered an offensive word, or a slur? If so, I'm really sorry, as I have repeatedly used it.
PS: Thanks again everybody for answering my slew of questions.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Mormon" is not considered a slur or offensive.
It's an acceptable nickname, it's just members sometimes feel the need to point out that it's not the actual name of the church. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it is "Mormon" with an "-on" at the end. Most Mormons prefer LDS or Latter-day Saint. No bother whatever you decide.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some missionaries visited my house the other day right before I was going to leave for a job interview. So, I was decked out in a dress shirt (white, coincidentally), black pants, black shoes, a black belt, and a tie.
I opened the door, motioned to my clothes, and said, "Look, we match!"
I shook hands with them and had an enlightening conversation about LDS missionaries. I remembered two that had visited my house before, and they asked me what they'd said to me. Blah, blah, blah. Long story, short. My dad got home and told them we were already churched.
He's such a party pooper. I always enjoy talking to door-to-door missionaries. Not necessarily about religion even. I just react in a much more friendly manner than most of the people around here would.
quote:It's my dad (and my mother-in-law). I would never call him out that way. The fact is, there are many things that I disagree with him (and the Southern Baptist Convention) about, but why pick those fights. I'm not going to change his (or their) mind, so why bother.
Well then, I'll take you at your word. I'd also like to refine my question, slightly. Change "throw it in their faces" to "critize their judgemental behavior", or at least "express disapproval" about it.
I've known very few people who meet that particular standard in practice.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Its really excellent in my opinion. Might help some of this conversation too.
And nathan, i applaud your approach to this topic. I'd just add that you shouldn't worry too much about offending us Mormons. We historically have some pretty thick skin. LOL
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nathan, just to let you know that you're not alone, I had never heard of the LDS church before coming to this site and reading OSC either!
Also, the origin of the term "Mormon" may be somewhat more confusing (at least it was to me) because Joseph Smith received the gold plates after being visited by the angel Moroni.
For the longest time I couldn't figure out how you get Mormon from Moroni. Then the PBS doc came along, and I found that Moroni's father was named Mormon.
*the more you know* Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's my dad (and my mother-in-law). I would never call him out that way. The fact is, there are many things that I disagree with him (and the Southern Baptist Convention) about, but why pick those fights. I'm not going to change his (or their) mind, so why bother.
Well then, I'll take you at your word. I'd also like to refine my question, slightly. Change "throw it in their faces" to "critize their judgemental behavior", or at least "express disapproval" about it.
I've known very few people who meet that particular standard in practice.
It's something I talk about with my wife (and now you), but that is as far as I take it. It's still, basically, doing the same thing. Although I am not telling the person they are going to hell because..., I am doing the same thing. I guess I have some work to do.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Can someone explain to me when exactly the title of Elder is used? I know it applies to male missionaries, but it's also used sometimes for others in the hierarchy. I can hear someone saying "Elder Bednar", for instance, and "Elder Oaks". I've been in the church now for six years but I've never understood exactly what makes someone eligible to be referred to as Elder. Can someone clarify for me?
I didn't see where this was answered accurately, so I'll chime in, even though we've moved far beyond this by now
Elder is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood.
To explain this more, we believe in basically two Priesthoods (think of it much like how in the Old Testament there was the Priesthood that Aaron and his sons had and then the Priesthood that the sons of Levi had).
The first one is the Aaronic Priesthood. This is meant more for the administering of the church on earth. Typically, boys receive this at age 12. They start out as Deacons (which is the first office in this Priesthood), then move to Teachers at age 14, and then Priests at age 16.
Although a boy may be a Priest, he still has all the rights, power, and authority given to him as a deacon. For example, Deacons are the ones who pass the sacrament and Priests are the ones who say the sacramental prayer. However, Priests can also pass the sacrament (but Deacons cannot bless the sacrament).
At age 18 (again, typically), boys are given the higher, or Melchizedek, Priesthood. This Priesthood has the right of presiding over the church and for spiritual blessings.
The first office of this Priesthood is Elder. However, this priesthood works a bit differently than the Aaronic since we don't change to a different office based on age. The other offices are High Priest, patriarch, Seventy, and Apostle.
I am 35 years old and still an Elder. However, there are others my age who are High Priests. It has nothing to do with sins, but more to do with what services you are asked to render (certain leadership positions require certain offices in the Priesthood).
That all being said, most people don't call me Elder Verloren (if that were my last name). We typically reserve the title of Elder for those who are leaders, like those in the Seventy or even Apostles; or for missionaries. Although, when I was the president over the group of Elders in my ward, I often would say "Elders" to get their attention, and so forth.
Anyway, there is a lot more detail that I could go into on which office is allowed to do what and so forth, but that would take up LOTS of space, so I'll stop there. If you have more questions, feel free to contact me through email.
posted
I think there may be a special exception for doing things *back* to people who are doing them to you. I'm not sure about that, and there's a lot to be said for modeling the behavior you think is best, but for instance, when it comes to bullies who beat people up day after day, unprovoked, just for fun, then I've found that hurting them real bad just once (when they pick on you) is an effective teaching tool. It works out much for the best that way. Ignoring it and not responding, or responding with words, or by an appeal to authority, or any other non-violent means doesn't seem to work (trust me, I have years of experience in this). However, being nice to everyone, but responding to violence by making the violent one feel severe pain (hopefully without injury but accidents do happen) then breaking it off, seems to work instantly to teach people better behavior. This is good for everyone in the end, most of all, for the bully themselves. For they learn how to have healthy interactions with others. It's sort of taking parental responsibilty for someone, and giving them a spanking, when they desperately need some correction.
So I think this principle is larger than just schoolyard or family bullying, too. I believe by analogy, it's not at all the same thing to use judgementalism indiscriminately, and use it first, versus using it in a limited way, in direct response to someone else's indiscriminate judgementalism, and in an effort to teach them better. I believe that indiscriminate judgementalism is wrong but measured, specific, and corrective judgementalism may be wise and good. Things like that can't be examined in a vacuum but context matters, and motive, and outcomes.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Verloren, thanks for the clarification! I know there is Elder's Quorum, and then there are High Priests. Do they meet separately on Sundays? Are Apostles not High Priests, then?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't see where this was answered accurately, so I'll chime in, even though we've moved far beyond this by now
The previous answers were not incorrect. She asked about the title Elder, not the office of the priesthood, and the answers dealt with the title Elder, not the office.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana, yes they do meet seperately. Apostles are High Priests. You have to hold the High Priest office to have particular leadership positions.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'm going to quibble with you there, Occasional.
Apostle is an office in the Melchezidek priesthood just like elder and high priest are.
Inasmuch as it is accurate to say that an apostle is also a high priest, it is accurate to say that a high priest is an elder. Or, for that matter, a priest or a deacon.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
m-p-h, I would have to say that it depends on what context you are talking about, so quibble accepted.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Actually, I'm going to quibble with you there, Occasional.
Apostle is an office in the Melchezidek priesthood just like elder and high priest are.
Inasmuch as it is accurate to say that an apostle is also a high priest, it is accurate to say that a high priest is an elder. Or, for that matter, a priest or a deacon.
I believe MPH is correct in this summation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bishop is the president of the Aaronic Priesthood in the ward.
The Elders Quorum President is the president of the elders in the ward.
The High Priests Group Leader is not the president of the high priests in the ward, however. The stake president is president of all the high priests in the stake.
The president of the Church is the presiding high priest in the Church.
Just to clarify, in case anyone was wondering. Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, EQ & HP meet separately. And yes, apostles are "High Priests" in the Priesthood. Their office is just really high up the chain.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quick clarification that may need to be corrected:
The Bishop is also the presiding high priest in the ward; that's why the High Priest Group leader isn't called "President."
If a literal descendant of Aaron is present, then it's his right, through lineage and righteousness, to preside over the Aaronic priesthood, but ward's presiding high priest (called by the Stake High Council, I think)is still the general leader of the ward.
Here's the scriptural reference:
quote:D&C 107
68 Wherefore, the office of a bishop is not equal unto it; for the office of a bishop is in administering all temporal things; 69 Nevertheless a bishop must be chosen from the High Priesthood, unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron; 70 For unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron he cannot hold the keys of that priesthood. 71 Nevertheless, a high priest, that is, after the order of Melchizedek, may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth; 72 And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church. 73 This is the duty of a bishop who is not a literal descendant of Aaron, but has been ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. 74 Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion, or in a stake of Zion, or in any branch of the church where he shall be set apart unto this ministry, until the borders of Zion are enlarged and it becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion or elsewhere.
posted
Hey, you guys wanna come teach my seminary class? We're doing D&C and I mess this part up every time! Posts: 1735 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
artee, think of it as building blocks. You don't lose anything, just add onto it.
Except for Bishops. Not completely sure of that one. I have heard it many times, but is it proper to call someone Bishop after they have been released?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, guys-- you don't call a deacon's quorum president "President" after he becomes a teacher, after all.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bishop is an office of the priesthood, though...I think it is more like you certainly could, but we don't in general because they aren't acting in it anymore.
The man who was bishop when I was baptized was called "bishop" for YEARS after he was released - not that that proves anything.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I remember right, the official style guide of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says that former bishops should still be called bishop unless they have a new calling that supersedes it. It's been over two years since I used that style guide, though.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
An office is a calling in the priesthood. You are called to hold the office of bishop, or deacon, but you don't hold the office of Sunday School teacher or Young Men's President. Confusing?
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Callings are also temporary, while offices in the priesthood are not. That is, you serve in a calling for a while and are then released. But when you cease to be the bishop of a ward, you don't cease to hold the office of a bishop in the priesthood.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are only eight offices: Aaronic: deacon, teacher, priest, bishop Melchezedic: elder, high priest, apostle...I'm missing one. What am I missing? Patriarch?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay... So, who decides how to assign the callings? The Ward Leader person (Biship?)?
And, do callings have requirements? Like, should I have taken such a class in order to be an effective Spiritual Living Teacher?
Also (And I realize the fact that almost every sentence of mine is ending in a question mark has got to be annoying...), do you sing hymns?
That's something I've wondered, just because I play piano in church. Are there different hymns for the LDS church?
And do you have modern praise and worship... Contemporary Mormon, as opposed to contemporary Christian? Can you use Christian hymns in a service at the LDS church (Or is it Church of LDS?)?
And, although I've said it before, and it sounds really trite, I really *do* appreciate you guys taking the time to answer this... I'm curious, and I don't think I'm considering converting or anything, anymore than I'm dismissing the idea. For some reason, I'm just really interested. A horrible explanation, I know. :~)
I need to read the Book of Mormon... I've read the Homecoming Saga. Does that count? LOL. I'm just kidding. Couldn't resist.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay... So, who decides how to assign the callings? The Ward Leader person (Bishop?)?
It depends on where the calling is. Generally, if you look at the chart from the wikipedia link, the level above calls the members of the level one below.
An exception that an apostle calls the stake president, and the stake president (or high council?) calls the Elder's Quorum president and high priest group leaders.
The bishop will call the sunday school president, relief society president (women's group), young women's president, and primary president (children's group). Those presidents will pray about counselors and suggest names to the bishop, and the bishop will call them. Most (all?) other ward callings are done by the bishop.
For all the groups above, there is a stake-level presidency, and the stake president calls those.
quote:And, do callings have requirements? Like, should I have taken such a class in order to be an effective Spiritual Living Teacher?
Generally, no. There are some gender differences - young women presidents and relief society presidents are always female, primary presidents usually are, and the other presidents are all male. Primary (for kids) and sunday school (for 12+) teachers are either gender.
A member does need to worthy to hold a calling, in that there are no major commandments being broken. To decide what means is generally up to the bishop and stake president.
Also, you're not going to get called as bishop or stake president if you're not attending the temple at least somewhat regularly (if a temple is nearby).
quote: do you sing hymns?
Yep. Emma Smith (Joseph's wife) was commanded to put together the first LDS hymnbook. The edition we use today was introduced in...1983, I think. From http://www.lds.org/churchmusic/ , you can find the music, lyrics, and sheet music for most of the songs in the hymnbook. There are a few that are under copyright and so are not on the website.
O My Father is the hymn that has been referenced in this thread a few times.
quote:That's something I've wondered, just because I play piano in church. Are there different hymns for the LDS church?
Yes, some. O My Father is one; there is Come, Come Ye Saints about crossing the plains that appears in every documentary about the church and every church film. The Spirit of God was sung at the dedication of the Kirtland temple. Joseph Smith's First Prayer is obviously only LDS.
There are a lot of other hymns in the hymnbook that you may recognize - Rock of Ages; How Great Thour Art; Redeemer of Isreal; He Died! The Great Redeemer Died; Jesus, Lover of My Soul.
quote:And do you have modern praise and worship... Contemporary Mormon, as opposed to contemporary Christian?
I'm not completely sure what you mean, but I think it is no. The main meeting - we call it sacrament meeting - is pretty Western traditional.
quote:Can you use Christian hymns in a service at the LDS church (Or is it Church of LDS?)?
Yes - many (most, I think) of the hymns in the hymnbook were written by non-LDS Christians. The hymns sung by the whole congregation are from the hymnbook. For choir pieces or musical numbers, other songs can be sung although they are usually run by the bishop first.
"LDS church" is fine for shorthand. The full name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those capital letters and hyphens are oddly important - there are a few other small groups that have the same name, but without a hyphen or else the "day" is capitalized.
quote:And, although I've said it before, and it sounds really trite, I really *do* appreciate you guys taking the time to answer this... I'm curious, and I don't think I'm considering converting or anything, anymore than I'm dismissing the idea. For some reason, I'm just really interested. A horrible explanation, I know. :~)
No problem.
quote:I need to read the Book of Mormon... I've read the Homecoming Saga. Does that count? LOL. I'm just kidding. Couldn't resist.
Oh, so close! I do look at the book of Mosiah slightly differently now that I've read the Homecoming series. If you want a copy of the BoM, you can get one from www.mormons.org.
posted
We have three men called "Bishop" in our ward-- the current and two past bishops. Generally only those who lived in the ward during the time the men were bishop call the older men who are not currently bishop "Bishop."
My husband was in a ward where the bishop was called again as bishop-- except he wasn't set apart as bishop again, his keys were reactivated. Apparently you don't lose them, they are just, well, deactivated for lack of a better word, once you are called as bishop of a ward you are always bishop of that ward and your keys can be reactivated by the proper authority. I am not sure if this applies to being called as bishop of another ward.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The High Priests Group Leader is not the president of the high priests in the ward, however. The stake president is president of all the high priests in the stake.
quote:The Bishop is also the presiding high priest in the ward; that's why the High Priest Group leader isn't called "President."
I asked our High Priest Group Leader about that tonight, and he was very firm in the opinion that the Stake President is the president of the Melchizedek Priesthood for the area, not the Bishop.
quote:I am not sure if this applies to being called as bishop of another ward.
I believe so.
According to the wikilink, you only have to be a High Priest to be a counselor to the President of the Church -- not an apostle. I wonder if that has ever happened since the Quorum of the Twelve was established.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both Charles W. Nibley and J. Reuben Clark were called as counselors in the First Presidency without being ordained apostles, so it has happened at least twice.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The High Priests Group Leader is not the president of the high priests in the ward, however. The stake president is president of all the high priests in the stake.
quote:The Bishop is also the presiding high priest in the ward; that's why the High Priest Group leader isn't called "President."
I asked our High Priest Group Leader about that tonight, and he was very firm in the opinion that the Stake President is the president of the Melchizedek Priesthood for the area, not the Bishop.
Although the Bishop is the presiding High Priest in the ward, the reason the HP group leader is just a group leader (IIRC) is because the quorum is organized on the stake level, rather than on the ward level. So, pretty much what porteiro said.
quote:
quote:I am not sure if this applies to being called as bishop of another ward.
I believe so.
I'll second that. Bishop is an ordination, not a calling, and so is permanent. Keys would have to be given (in a new ward), but he would not need to be re-ordained a Bishop.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both Charles W. Nibley and J. Reuben Clark were called as counselors in the First Presidency without being ordained apostles, so it has happened at least twice.
Thanks. I thought that had happened, but I didn't know the specifics.
I'll bet this is how they've gotten the odd situation mentioned in this wikilink where an apostle is removed from the Quorum of the Twelve because of an excess of apostles.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The Bishop is also the presiding high priest in the ward; that's why the High Priest Group leader isn't called "President."
Aha, you have stepped right into a question I've been asking for several months: namely, why is it a high priests group and not a high priests quorum?
The answer I was given which seemed most "right" to me so far was that there is no high priests quorum on the ward level; the high priests in the stake make up a quorum, and the stake president is their president.
Does that sound right to you? Any references to confirm/negate this? (Seems to me that something I read either in the D&C or in Mormon Doctrine confirmed this idea of the quorum existing at the stake rather than ward level.)
ETA: And now I'm a classic example of not reading all the posts in a thread before posting. I see that SenojRetep already made this same point. And maybe others did, too, but I haven't read all of them. Sorry. Just got excited when I saw that Scott's comment tied right into my current question, I guess!
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The answer I was given which seemed most "right" to me so far was that there is no high priests quorum on the ward level; the high priests in the stake make up a quorum, and the stake president is their president.
That sounds correct to me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both Charles W. Nibley and J. Reuben Clark were called as counselors in the First Presidency without being ordained apostles, so it has happened at least twice.
Thanks. I thought that had happened, but I didn't know the specifics.
I'll bet this is how they've gotten the odd situation mentioned in this wikilink where an apostle is removed from the Quorum of the Twelve because of an excess of apostles.
There's also the odd case of Alvin Dyer who was ordained an apostle, but was never a member of the quorum. He served as a 3rd counselor to David O. McKay, but when the First Presidency was dissolved at Pres. McKay's death, Elder Dyer didn't return to the quorum (never having been a member). Instead he was made one of the Assitants to the Quorum, and eventually absorbed into the First Quorum of the Seventy. But since Apostle (like Bishop) is an ordination within the Priesthood, he remained an Apostle, even though he was never a member of the quorum.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The questions have gotten pretty far afield from the concepts in Lost Boys, and the Cards have asked in the past that there not be a thread specifically for a general discussion of Mormonism.
My belief is that their purpose for not wanting such a thread is that it's prone to deteriorate into a person or people trying to pose "zinger" questions in such a way as to denigrate something the Cards hold dear while maintaining a plausible deniability against accusations of less-than-well-intentioned questioning. I don't think this thread is at that point at all, and I'd like to see it not get there. If there are more questions regarding how/why the LDS Church is portrayed in the novel, I think those are ok.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
