The idea that the prophet can never lead the church astray

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

If someone here has argued that, feel free to point it out.

Uh...the speaker Mike quoted, the majority of the membership of the church, you...

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Uh...the speaker Mike quoted, the majority of the membership of the church, you...

Well, there's a can of worms you just opened. Now you're going to hear about how Tex has never argued that, you're putting words in his mouth. Then you're going to ask what he does believe on the subject. Then he's going to post to a previous comment he made, that really doesn't answer the question. You're going to call him out on that. He's going to say it's a waste of time arguing with you, and end with something pithy like "Cheers" or "Carry on".

We've been through this before.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Well, there's a can of worms you just opened. Now you're going to hear about how Tex has never argued that, you're putting words in his mouth. Then you're going to ask what he does believe on the subject. Then he's going to post to a previous comment he made, that really doesn't answer the question. You're going to call him out on that. He's going to say it's a waste of time arguing with you, and end with something pithy like "Cheers" or "Carry on".

We've been through this before.

And only after 12 pages of posts will Tex finally state that he has never uttered a single word in favor of any position on that topic but he would now be happy to provide you with his opinion (which will then either never be provided, or will be stated in such a flimsy manner as to hardly constitute an opinion at all).

I typed up a disclaimer for him to use a while back so people wouldn't continue to be so confused. He doesn't seem to want to use it for some reason. I think it would be most helpful.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And only after 12 pages of posts will Tex finally state that he has never uttered a single word in favor of any position on that topic but he would now be happy to provide you with his opinion (which will then either never be provided, or will be stated in such a flimsy manner as to hardly constitute an opinion at all).

I typed up a disclaimer for him to use a while back so people wouldn't continue to be so confused. He doesn't seem to want to use it for some reason. I think it would be most helpful.

Mike, can you intervene here?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

are you familiar with the concept of the apostasy? If you believe in the apostasy then it has already happened at least once.

But at that point, it ceased to be Christ's church, didn't it?

[Tex]

Well, I guess I don't need to say anything after all. I've got SoCal and Cali to speak on my behalf.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by T Blue

Is the LDS chruch, Christs church upon the earth today?

Would Christ allow ANY person to lead his chruch into areas he does not wish it to be led?

Would he take away agency to make it impossible? I don't think so. So the answer is yes he would "let" it.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Would he take away agency to make it impossible? I don't think so. So the answer is yes he would "let" it.

Would he "let" it without serious warning to the person He entrusted with leading his church or without serious repercussions if that person failed to heed the serious warnings?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Would he "let" it without serious warning to the person He entrusted with leading his church or without serious repercussions if that person failed to heed the serious warnings?

If you read the OT and BoM you will see that it is quite easy for an entire church to fall into apostasy and wickedness.

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Would he take away agency to make it impossible? I don't think so. So the answer is yes he would "let" it.

If the church, as you say, is possibly led astray, who's to say it isn't there right now?