« Kudos to Elder Ballard! | Main | The Tongue of Angels--Elder Jeffrey R. Holland »

December 20, 2007



wow! that was so slimy. i was especially taken aback by the simple "no" given to the question about women going to heaven. such a PR answer! my first reaction was the same as yours, that their answer should have been, "actually, that's required of both men and women." what a joke.

Jordan F.

Hmmm. Where you see obfuscation and evasion, I see polished presentation. Interesting...


Come on, Equality. None of this should be surprising. We all know that you never learn anything new from interrogatories...



Especially poorly drafted ones. Requests for production, now, I could have fun with those. And if we could just get one of these guys in for a deposition...


I was thinking that the copy-paste problem originated from Fox, not from the Church. Like maybe the Church PR person took three questions and put one answer below them, and Fox cut and pasted.


Good point, Katie. I had not thought of that.


Q: Are consumption of alcohol and tobacco prohibited or simply discouraged?

A: It is against the TEACHINGS of the Church to use alcohol and tobacco or to drink tea and coffee.

So...does this mean, since there is no such thing as 'official binding doctrine' other than what is in the scriptures and the 5-ish 1st Presidency declarations, that when Brigham Young made the WOW a "commandment" we can ignore that "teaching" just like his slit your spouse's throat if they've sinned in order to save them and Adam is HF teachings?

In the actual, official, canonized and accepted by the Church to be binding (due to the raising of the hands) scriptures, it says it is NOT a commandment, so that'd open up strong drinks to me as an option would it not? (Funny thing, how God's actual words, teachings and commandments to men only have any validity if I MYSELF say they do by raising my hand, as if I can boss Him around and say what He actually did, or did not say or mean to say).

The WOW actually TEACHES us to drink beer (my take)...D&C 89 vs.17" Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain." --- now, just what "mild drinks" were being made in the times of JS made of "barley" and "other grain"? I've never had beer before, but my personal take on the WOW appears to sanction and allow me to partake of it freely if I so choose.

Interesting and slippery thing, this jello-like church doctrine, teachings, commandments, good ideas, guidelines or suggestions or whatever the heck they are today. :)

THANKS for another great post Equality.



"(Funny thing, how God's actual words, teachings and commandments to men only have any validity if I MYSELF say they do by raising my hand, as if I can boss Him around and say what He actually did, or did not say or mean to say)."

Yeah, it really sucks to have a God that allows His children a say in how to live their own lives. It would be so much easier if we weren't granted the power to choose and all this troublesome autonomy. Just imagine how much better it would be if God acted like a dictatorial overlord instead of a loving Father.


DPC: "Yeah, it really sucks to have a God that allows His children a say in how to live their own lives. It would be so much easier if we weren't granted the power to choose and all this troublesome autonomy. Just imagine how much better it would be if God acted like a dictatorial overlord instead of a loving Father."

No, I don't think it sucks, I just think it's 'funny' (as in 'odd funny') how us puny human's determine what words God actually said or didn't say, and or that will be binding on us, or not.

Like the revelation JS received for the brethren to marry the Lamanites to help speed up the 'making them white' process. God said it. It's a revelation. Yet, it didn't make the 'cut'. I wonder what other items didn't make the cut...since I myself seem to be the determining factor on His words making the cut, I'd like to know ALL of his revelations so I can pick and choose which to raise my hand for or not.

The Lectures on Faith clearly teach HF is a spirit only and is omnipresent, that Jesus has a body and the HG is only the mind and will of God and that the Godhead is 2 persons (and that these teachings are doctrinal and we can base our faith unto salvation on them). Even though everyone put up their hands to sanction those words as being binding, scripture and official doctrine in 1835, it's now out of our official cannon (1835-1921), even though no one put up their hands to say 'we now DON'T believe it and please remove it from our cannon'.

QUESTION: How is having 7 lectures of faith removed from MY scriptures without my being asked (hey, we the people made them thus originally), "granting the power to choose and all this troublesome autonomy."?

Just seems rather evasive of God (to me) to put out doctrines as scriptural for us and then to change His mind. Saying He's a spirit only and omnipresent, then saying He's got a body and can't be omnipresent due to the body and it's the HG who is a spirit and no longer just the 'mind and will of God and JC'. If I'm the one in the first place who determines what he DID say, I ought at least to be consulted when He changes His mind, it's only logical reasoning here is it not?

I just think it funny (funny odd), kinda like trying to nail jello to a wall, all of this 'official teachings' or 'official doctrine'. I think it even funnier when I actually picture myself determining what God said and didn't say by raising MY puny little human hand.

When I'm a God, I'm gonna show up and hold a press conference. :)

If you've sensed any discontent, confusion and disillusionment on my part, then my feelings are indeed coming through as I intended them to through my words...and you don't even have to raise your hand to sustain them. :)

Jordan F.

RE: You are funny.


THANK YOU! I read this yesterday and was trying to explain the general tone of it to my husband, but couldn't quite. I'll just e-mail him the link now. You nailed it!

Jordan F.

Notice that in the song you cite, "If you could Hie To Kolob," by WW Phelps, the term Kolob is used more as a representation of where God is than anything else, and it is only used once.

And I have heard "Kolob" being mentioned as the name of a hypothetical plant or star that is near where God is, and I believe that was the context in which it is used in the Book of Abraham as well. I think the LDS Church answer to this interrogatory was actually quite nice, getting rid of years of Elder's Quorum and High Priest (and Relief Society) ridiculous speculation on Kolobian space doctrine.

Really, all it says about Kolob in the Book of Abraham is this:

2 And I [Abraham] saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

"Kolob" never has been a central part of any LDS teaching, except space doctrine discussions in EQ/HP/elsewhere. As for the song, which while having "Kolob" in its title only mentions the word ONE TIME, "Kolob" there is used simply as a representation for where god is.


hey katie! i guess you wandered over here from that snarky post i deleted a few minutes later. you must get all of my posts, even if regret them five seconds after i post them, eh?

i was pretty surprised that the questions weren't more, you know, interrogatory. i mean, is the kolob question really that important? aren't there far more troublesome and confusing doctrines to consider?


Polished presentation?




I think it's good that they (someone in pr) answered the questions, for the public. Some of these are very thorny questions - which are rarely answered.

I do love the dig about anti-mormons and anti-mormon blogs and websites. Obviously, anyone who would want to talk about this information or know the answers to these questions is anti-mormon.


The church sure knows how to put their foot in their mouth! I nearly came out my computer chair when I got the email from Saints Alive about the subject. It's crazy that the church would think that the members of their own religion would accept the "new" thought(s) on the questions asked.

mondo cool

I realize I am very late to this discussion, but it seems to me that any answer the Mormons give that are contrary to the views that Equality holds, must be "Obfuscation, Evasion, and Half-Truths."

"You give an answer that I don't like = Evasion!"
"You give a different perspective than mine = obfuscation!"
"You don't give all the information that I would give = Half-truth!"

Gee, who knew it was so easy?



Thanks for commenting. I appreciate your perspective. I hope you enjoy my little blog.



Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)