Until other words mean, those earlier words didn't mean what they meant then.
Yeah, the Mormon god is a relative subjective god...who changes the meanings of words...
In the words of FR poster Ejonesie22...(who must have dusted off the microscope to read the Mormon legal fineprint):
Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are consider unofficial by said officials. At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially. This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness. Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial. This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used here by haters cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site else where. Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially. I hope this clear things up for the lurkers out there. As I said the haters tend to make things complicated and confusing when it is all crystal clear.... Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2573705/posts Post #24
(Thanks again Ejones!...we need those fine-print navigators out there!)
How often have we seen posts through the years where somebody cites a previous sermon or Journal of Discourses reference by an LDS “prophet” or general authority only to be told, “Ya know, that’s not LDS canon!” or “You can’t hold an LDS “prophet” or “apostle” accountable for every obscure spiritual message he gives in public, can you?”
Whenever a Mormon would offer up such an explanation, well, how befuddled could they leave readers? Here, LDS have lectured us left & right about the need for living revelators & seers & "prophets" & "apostles" via general conference messages, Ensign mag articles, sermons, teachings, writings, etc. (So tell us again why it’s our issue if Mormons consider what any general authority—dead or alive—has voiced publicly to either be dismissed or deemed obscure?
ALL: The lesson to be learned here? ANYthing ANY Mormon general authority has said can be readily dismissed. If one Lds "prophet" has said "No blacks allowed." Well, so what? A later Lds "prophet" just updates the teaching; reverses it, and moves on.
* Polygamy as a Book of Mormon "abomination" in the Book of Jacob, 1830? (Yup)
* Joseph Smith & D&C 132 institutionalizing it? (Yup)
* A manifesto frowning upon it (1890?) (Yup)
* McConkie announcing the Mormon Jesus will rebound polygamy into the earthly mix? (1966) (Yup)
* Lds leaders tossing McConkie's book "Mormon Doctrine" in the waste bin of republishing? (2010) (Yup)
* Polygamy going on near Kolob right now, per Mormonism? (Yup)
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |