Posted by:
Wally Prince
(
)
Date: November 04, 2018 10:04PM
String together a bunch of those buzzwords and the TBMs in the audience get an emotional buzz.
But if you closely analyze what has been said, you soon realize that...well...nothing actually has been said.
Let's just look at the first authoritatively pronounced statement:
"Obedience to the doctrine of Christ is the only way to return to the presence of Heavenly Father."
What is the "doctrine of Christ"?
Was polygamy the "doctrine of Christ?" Brigham Young and Joseph Smith and Heber C. Kimball and George Q. Cannon all would say "YES!!!"
Nelson, Eyring, Holland et al would say something like: "Sort of, but not now, but maybe later...we don't know exactly..."
What is the "doctrine of Christ"?
Is firmly believing that Adam is the Father, the God, the only God to whom we pray and whom we worship the "doctrine of Christ"? Brigham Young emphatically would have said "YES!"
Nelson, Eyring, Holland and colleagues would say: "NO!"
Are temples/temple rituals part of the "doctrine of Christ"?
Holland would say: "Absolutely!"
The Book of Mormon says nothing about it, but is supposed to the "fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ".
D&C 20:8-9:
"8. And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;
"9. Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the FULNESS OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST to the Gentiles and to the Jews also."
So is the "doctrine of Christ" different from the "gospel of Christ"?
If the Book of Mormon contains the "fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ" and completely omits any mention of baptism for the dead, polygamy the way that Joseph Smith practiced it, temple ordinances and rituals, etc., is it safe to say that "obedience to the doctrine of Christ" does not require participation or belief in any of those omitted items?
Holland would say "No! You have to be obedient to all of those things!"
I would say: "Obedience to those things is not required."
Who would be right? Holland would insist that he's right because he has the priesthood and authority to declare such things.
I would say that he's not right and that his "priesthood" and "authority" are fictions, fabrications, falsehoods and farcical nonsense.
So confusing! Who could settle such disagreements with clarity, so that we do not have to rely upon the pronouncements of strange old guys who think that they have proper authority because they wear suits and ties, rub olive oil in each others' hair and pretend to give each other Christ's authority. It's a joke.
Jesus could settle the matter by personally appearing to everyone and explaining things clearly. But that doesn't happen.
The "General Authorities" are constantly disagreeing with past "General Authorities" and often with each other.
So, with that in mind, let's go back to the original statement:
"Obedience to the doctrine of Christ is the only way to return to the presence of Heavenly Father."
The buzz words are there:
Mormons have been programmed to have an emotional response to the word "obedience." It triggers a vague feeling of guilt because every Mormon knows that there are dozens of rules that they may be are not being perfectly obedient to. Even things like attitude. "Was I not cheerful enough when Bishop Snowjob asked me to clean the toilets for the third weekend in a row, last Sunday?"
The rest is all buzzwords too--each triggering a well-conditioned emotional response.
But, when you sum it all up, it literally means nothing because nobody really knows what constitutes the "doctrine of Christ" that must be obeyed.
You have to take the word of some guy who is not Christ telling you today what he thinks the "doctrine of Christ" is based on some authority that he claims to have, even though he derives that authority from predecessors in previous generations who taught conflicting doctrines as being the "doctrine of Christ."
Dear Mormons, these guys are not giving you anything that is worth 10% of your annual income.