LDS Freedom Forum

Frederick wrote:

"My brothers and sisters, I want you to know how grateful I am for the gospel of Jesus Christ, restored in these latter days through the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is the key to our happiness. May we be humble and prayerful, having the faith that our Heavenly Father can guide and bless us in our lives.

I don't mean to nitpick here, but this is not a testimony. This is a statement of gratitude. Frankly, one of my pet peeves in testimony meetings are thanktimonies. A testimony is a witness, as in if you are an eye witness to an event. It is a statement like, I know, I testify, etc...

Just my two cents. I'm not declaring any affirmation or rejection of the article in question. I'm reading it now. However, I did find the quote you provided didn't meet a definition of testimony.

Thats because you stopped reading Pres. Monsons testimony after one paragraph Frederick. You of all people should be one of the last ones to complain about the magnitude of Pres. Monsons pure witness and testimony since you witness it all the time yourself. Let me post again for you his Testimony:

"I bear my personal witness and testimony to you that God lives, that He hears the prayers of humble hearts. His Son, our Savior and Redeemer, speaks to each of us: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him.”2 May we believe these words and take advantage of this promise."

Again, the article that Aussie attached does NOT say that Pres Monson does not bear testimony of the Savior. He does, often and fervently. What the article states is that it seems, and is evident in the record, is that for the past 8 years or so he has not borne direct and fervent testimony of Joseph Smith as a Prophet, or the Book of Mormon as divinely restored scripture, or that a prophet leads the church today through direct revelation from God. Monson alludes to these beliefs, but stops short of using unequivocal language regarding his testimony of them. He uses that unequivocal language in testifying of God and Christ, and of the work the Church is doing.

The article, and AussieOI, are stating that there is a difference in the fervent testimony Monson bears of the Savior, with the lack of the same fervency in bearing testimony of Joseph, the Restoration, the Book of Mormon, and latter-day Prophets/revelation. He admonishes members of the Church to bear testimony of these foundational truths of the Church, while not actually doing so himself. He expresses gratitude, but does not bear unequivical testimony in the way that Frederick did.

keep the faith wrote:

Frederick wrote:

"My brothers and sisters, I want you to know how grateful I am for the gospel of Jesus Christ, restored in these latter days through the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is the key to our happiness. May we be humble and prayerful, having the faith that our Heavenly Father can guide and bless us in our lives.

I don't mean to nitpick here, but this is not a testimony. This is a statement of gratitude. Frankly, one of my pet peeves in testimony meetings are thanktimonies. A testimony is a witness, as in if you are an eye witness to an event. It is a statement like, I know, I testify, etc...

Just my two cents. I'm not declaring any affirmation or rejection of the article in question. I'm reading it now. However, I did find the quote you provided didn't meet a definition of testimony.

Thats because you stopped reading Pres. Monsons testimony after one paragraph Frederick. You of all people should be one of the last ones to complain about the magnitude of Pres. Monsons pure witness and testimony since you witness it all the time yourself. Let me post again for you his Testimony:

"I bear my personal witness and testimony to you that God lives, that He hears the prayers of humble hearts. His Son, our Savior and Redeemer, speaks to each of us: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him.”2 May we believe these words and take advantage of this promise."

Keep the Faith,

I apologize for misreading your post. I thought you were posting those paragraphs as two examples of Monson's testimony. I clearly saw the paragraph you cite here as a strong testimony. I agree with you.

However, I think most here are missing the point of the article. Did anyone here read it? The article does not say Monson does not bear testimony. Let me repeat this, the article does NOT say Monson does not bear testimony. The article makes a claim that Monson avoids bearing testimony of the foundational beliefs of the LDS church, such as bearing a testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet, etc...

So, let us at least try to discuss this accurately. I admit, I made a mistake with reading keep the faith's previous post. Can we all strive for accuracy in this discussion?

Frederick wrote: Keep the Faith,

I apologize for misreading your post. I thought you were posting those paragraphs as two examples of Monson's testimony. I clearly saw the paragraph you cite here as a strong testimony. I agree with you.

However, I think most here are missing the point of the article. Did anyone here read it? The article does not say Monson does not bear testimony. Let me repeat this, the article does NOT say Monson does not bear testimony. The article makes a claim that Monson avoids bearing testimony of the foundational beliefs of the LDS church, such as bearing a testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet, etc...

So, let us at least try to discuss this accurately. I admit, I made a mistake with reading keep the faith's previous post. Can we all strive for accuracy in this discussion?

Thank you Frederick. Im all for accuracy. Thats why I want everyone here to understand why I believe fully that this is just another in a long line of hit pieces from anti's aimed at discrediting the church's Prophet. Frankly I am sick to death of seeing this kind of tripe. Lets look at this authors foundational point from his first paragraph in his article that AussieOi posted:

"Thomas S. Monson, the president of the LDS Church, has not borne testimony of any of his church's unique foundational doctrines– including the truth of the Book of Mormon or the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith– in any of the church's General Conference meetings since October of 2005. A way for readers to verify this fact is provided and its significance is discussed. The hypotheses that this avoidance is intentional and that Monson does not fully believe in these doctrines are proposed and supported with numerous evidences and lines of argument. Several anticipated objections and alternative explanations are considered and refuted. Plausible ideas on where Monson stands in his beliefs and on what may have led him to this position are presented. A call to action for church members and researchers is issued."

Aussie also included Pres. Packer in this "hypothesis". I then posted from last conference both testimonies given by these 2 latter day Prophets that most definitely address the church's most unique foundational doctrines which prove that this author is simply trying to deceive anyone who can't perceive and discern his motives and all he wants to do is trash the church's Prophet. What else is new?

That AussieOi posted it should also tell you something about where he is at in relation to his feelings about the church and its Prophet leaders. He has made the argument over and over again ad nauseum that the church and the Prophets have become nothing more than a latter day Corporate Babylonian empire void of really any spiritual direction from the Master. He has lost his faith in the church and its leadership. This attitude is displayed on almost every post he makes here. I would be delighted for him to tell me that I am mistaken in this assumption but it sure doesn't seem like I am based on reading his many uncomplimentary posts concerning the church and its leaders on a variety of subjects.

Both Pres. Monson and Pres. Packer address in their testimonies the most unique foundational doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That doctrine is that we can gain a personal relationship with our Savior and Redeemer by following the light of Jesus Christ back into his presence. John Pontius wrote a book about this that every LDS Saint should read imo. This is the foundational doctrine taught by every Prophet in the Book of Mormon up until now where our dear Prophet Pres. Monson also testifies of this sacred opportunity given to every Saint if they choose to take advantage of it.

The author presents his "hypothesis" that Pres. Monson really does not believe in the foundational truths taught by the church to every investigator who looks into joining the church. That supposition alone is just such a bunch of excrement. I have heard with my own ears and read in several church publications Pres. Monsons direct powerful testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and many other foundational church doctrines taught by the church. To say he does not believe these things is just so insulting and degrading toward the Prophet. I can hardly contain my disgust for such dishonesty. Only a liar and deceiver would make such a case.

The author wants us to believe that Pres. Monson is secretly involved in some kind of scam aimed at deceiving the LDS population by having all his counselors and fellow church leaders trot out testimony after testimony of foundational church doctrines while he himself is sitting back in his easy chair and winking in delight that the deceived membership are buying into all this bunk. Good grief beam me up scotty! I need to go back to doing something productive with my spiritual development. This is just getting old addressing one attack after another aimed at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its Prophet leaders. People need to get a life and stop with all the insulting attacks directed at the church and its Prophets.

keep the faith wrote:

Frederick wrote: Keep the Faith,

I apologize for misreading your post. I thought you were posting those paragraphs as two examples of Monson's testimony. I clearly saw the paragraph you cite here as a strong testimony. I agree with you.

However, I think most here are missing the point of the article. Did anyone here read it? The article does not say Monson does not bear testimony. Let me repeat this, the article does NOT say Monson does not bear testimony. The article makes a claim that Monson avoids bearing testimony of the foundational beliefs of the LDS church, such as bearing a testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet, etc...

So, let us at least try to discuss this accurately. I admit, I made a mistake with reading keep the faith's previous post. Can we all strive for accuracy in this discussion?

Thank you Frederick. Im all for accuracy. Thats why I want everyone here to understand why I believe fully that this is just another in a long line of hit pieces from anti's aimed at discrediting the church's Prophet. Frankly I am sick to death of seeing this kind of tripe. Lets look at this authors foundational point from his first paragraph in his article that AussieOi posted:

"Thomas S. Monson, the president of the LDS Church, has not borne testimony of any of his church's unique foundational doctrines– including the truth of the Book of Mormon or the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith– in any of the church's General Conference meetings since October of 2005. A way for readers to verify this fact is provided and its significance is discussed. The hypotheses that this avoidance is intentional and that Monson does not fully believe in these doctrines are proposed and supported with numerous evidences and lines of argument. Several anticipated objections and alternative explanations are considered and refuted. Plausible ideas on where Monson stands in his beliefs and on what may have led him to this position are presented. A call to action for church members and researchers is issued."

Aussie also included Pres. Packer in this "hypothesis". I then posted from last conference both testimonies given by these 2 latter day Prophets that most definitely address the church's most unique foundational doctrines which prove that this author is simply trying to deceive anyone who can't perceive and discern his motives and all he wants to do is trash the church's Prophet. What else is new?

That AussieOi posted it should also tell you something about where he is at in relation to his feelings about the church and its Prophet leaders. He has made the argument over and over again ad nauseum that the church and the Prophets have become nothing more than a latter day Corporate Babylonian empire void of really any spiritual direction from the Master. He has lost his faith in the church and its leadership. This attitude is displayed on almost every post he makes here. I would be delighted for him to tell me that I am mistaken in this assumption but it sure doesn't seem like I am based on reading his many uncomplimentary posts concerning the church and its leaders on a variety of subjects.

Both Pres. Monson and Pres. Packer address in their testimonies the most unique foundational doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That doctrine is that we can gain a personal relationship with our Savior and Redeemer by following the light of Jesus Christ back into his presence. John Pontius wrote a book about this that every LDS Saint should read imo. This is the foundational doctrine taught by every Prophet in the Book of Mormon up until now where our dear Prophet Pres. Monson also testifies of this sacred opportunity given to every Saint if they choose to take advantage of it.

The author presents his "hypothesis" that Pres. Monson really does not believe in the foundational truths taught by the church to every investigator who looks into joining the church. That supposition alone is just such a bunch of excrement. I have heard with my own ears and read in several church publications Pres. Monsons direct powerful testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and many other foundational church doctrines taught by the church. To say he does not believe these things is just so insulting and degrading toward the Prophet. I can hardly contain my disgust for such dishonesty. Only a liar and deceiver would make such a case.

The author wants us to believe that Pres. Monson is secretly involved in some kind of scam aimed at deceiving the LDS population by having all his counselors and fellow church leaders trot out testimony after testimony of foundational church doctrines while he himself is sitting back in his easy chair and winking in delight that the deceived membership are buying into all this bunk. Good grief beam me up scotty! I need to go back to doing something productive with my spiritual development. This is just getting old addressing one attack after another aimed at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its Prophet leaders. People need to get a life and stop with all the insulting attacks directed at the church and its Prophets.

This place has gone downhill fast. I have been on here for years and never seen posting like I have. Makes me wonder what it will be like when things get really hard. Put down the popcorn you may choke on it when reading posts these days.

I am so with you on this, Keep the Faith. I guess there must be something wrong me (according to some people here) because my faith and beliefs are quite simple. I do not find gospel principles hard to understand. I am a convert to the Church.....56 years now. I have always heard the Brethren testify of the things Keep the Faith made reference to in his post above. I have never had anyone teach me that I should NOT follow the Savior, etc. & etc. I thought that one of the "rules" here was NOT to disparage our leaders. I guess I need to read them again. At any rate....let the axe fall....since I certainly agree with all that Keep the Faith has posted.

A side note from a lurker:

Is no one going to rebut the heart of Aussies post??

Instead of typing up long posts about the state of this forum, Aussies state of mind, or the motives behind the the article he used, how about someone just provide a link that shows the article to be unfounded?

This would make it much easier for me to lurk lol.

Should be simple. Provide a link where President Monson says something such as:

I know the Book of Mormon is true
or
I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God
or
I know that the Lord is guiding the church today via revelation.

Should be easy! And I'm sure one is out there so just link to it!

Thanks guys. This is the first time I have heard of this and it is crazy to me that this hasn't just been easily dismissed using an example.

retracted

hyloglyph wrote:A side note from a lurker:

Is no one going to rebut the heart of Aussies post??

Instead of typing up long posts about the state of this forum, Aussies state of mind, or the motives behind the the article he used, how about someone just provide a link that shows the article to be unfounded?

This would make it much easier for me to lurk lol.

Should be simple. Provide a link where President Monson says something such as:

I know the Book of Mormon is true
or
I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God
or
I know that the Lord is guiding the church today via revelation.

Should be easy! And I'm sure one is out there so just link to it!

Thanks guys. This is the first time I have heard of this and it is crazy to me that this hasn't just been easily dismissed using an example.

Hylo, Thank the lurker for pointing out the obvious.

All that needs to be done is this:

"Hey brother Aussie, the following links/quotes I believe debunk the author's thesis."

hyloglyph wrote:A side note from a lurker:

Is no one going to rebut the heart of Aussies post??

Instead of typing up long posts about the state of this forum, Aussies state of mind, or the motives behind the the article he used, how about someone just provide a link that shows the article to be unfounded?

This would make it much easier for me to lurk lol.

Should be simple. Provide a link where President Monson says something such as:

I know the Book of Mormon is true
or
I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God
or
I know that the Lord is guiding the church today via revelation.

Should be easy! And I'm sure one is out there so just link to it!

Thanks guys. This is the first time I have heard of this and it is crazy to me that this hasn't just been easily dismissed using an example.

It's already been done. Twice actually. I'll add a couple more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGyJPI89 ... h46HxuuGJa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6qF6XTcKBY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, it has been done. One only needs to read from the beginning of this thread.....quite simple.

I see two kinds of people posting on the forum now. Those who support our church leaders and those who think the church and its leadership are fallen and apostate. I am throwing my lot in with those who still support the Church and its leaders.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... e?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"I love the words of President Brigham Young, who said, “I feel like shouting Hallelujah, all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith, the Prophet whom the Lord raised up and ordained, and to whom He gave keys and power to build up the kingdom of God on earth.” 9

To this fitting tribute to our beloved Joseph, I add my own testimony that I know he was God’s prophet, chosen to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ in these latter days. I pray that as we celebrate the 200th anniversary of his birth, we may learn from his life. May we incorporate into our own lives the divine principles which he so beautifully taught—by example—that we, ourselves, might live more completely the gospel of Jesus Christ. May our lives reflect the knowledge we have that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that we are led today by another prophet of God—even President Gordon B. Hinckley."



http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/lds-magazin ... gn-eng.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"With other latter-day prophets, I testify of the truthfulness of this “most correct of any book on earth,”  even the Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Christ. Its message spans the earth and brings its readers to a knowledge of the truth. It is my testimony that the Book
of Mormon changes lives. May each of us read it and reread it. And may we joyfully share our testimonies of its precious promises with all of God’s children."

Yes I go to anti sites.
I actually offer a middle ground and try being moderately apologetic.
Perhaps some of you could help me FACTUALLY refute this person (who I speak directly to)'s argument.

Even the Sept (July??) Ensign was a repeat of his 1967 article. Not a single new word.?

Give me the ammo to refute please

AussieOi wrote:Yes I go to anti sites.
I actually offer a middle ground and try being moderately apologetic.
Perhaps some of you could help me FACTUALLY refute this person (who I speak directly to)'s argument.

Even the Sept (July??) Ensign was a repeat of his 1967 article. Not a single new word.?

Give me the ammo to refute please

I am not going to say you have been doing this but there have been others who complain that we shouldn't follow the prophet because the Savior is who is our salvation. Many here say we lean too much on the prophet. Here we have proof that President Monson has been bearing testimony for the past 11 conferences of the Savior and not the prophet Joseph Smith or Book of Mormon. He has not born testimony that we should be following him. Aussie can you be so kind, on a few other threads, to help explain that we follow the prophet because he helps lead us to the Savior? Please reference this as I love when anti-mormons help the work along.

keep the faith wrote:https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... e?lang=eng
"I love the words of President Brigham Young, who said, “I feel like shouting Hallelujah, all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith, the Prophet whom the Lord raised up and ordained, and to whom He gave keys and power to build up the kingdom of God on earth.” 9

To this fitting tribute to our beloved Joseph, I add my own testimony that I know he was God’s prophet, chosen to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ in these latter days. I pray that as we celebrate the 200th anniversary of his birth, we may learn from his life. May we incorporate into our own lives the divine principles which he so beautifully taught—by example—that we, ourselves, might live more completely the gospel of Jesus Christ. May our lives reflect the knowledge we have that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that we are led today by another prophet of God—even President Gordon B. Hinckley."



http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/lds-magazin ... gn-eng.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"With other latter-day prophets, I testify of the truthfulness of this “most correct of any book on earth,”  even the Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Christ. Its message spans the earth and brings its readers to a knowledge of the truth. It is my testimony that the Book of Mormon changes lives. May each of us read it and reread it. And may we joyfully share our testimonies of its precious promises with all of God’s children."

Interesting you quote these two. The abstract of that paper specifically says:

Thomas S. Monson, the president of the LDS Church, has not borne testimony of any of his church's unique foundational doctrines including the truth of the Book of Mormon or the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith in any of the church's General Conference meetings since October of 2005.

In other words - you found the last time in general conference that President Monson bore his testimony of Joseph Smith. The other quote you provided was in an ensign article, some of which is actually discussed in the article...and this is also not a general conference talk.

Yes - the scope of the article is limited. But over 8 years of talks / ensign articles shouldn't there be something more that one article that briefly touches on these important foundational doctrines?

Note - I haven't formed any opinion as to "why" there is an apparent lack, but it is an interesting discovery.

jdtech wrote:

keep the faith wrote:https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... e?lang=eng
"I love the words of President Brigham Young, who said, “I feel like shouting Hallelujah, all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith, the Prophet whom the Lord raised up and ordained, and to whom He gave keys and power to build up the kingdom of God on earth.” 9

To this fitting tribute to our beloved Joseph, I add my own testimony that I know he was God’s prophet, chosen to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ in these latter days. I pray that as we celebrate the 200th anniversary of his birth, we may learn from his life. May we incorporate into our own lives the divine principles which he so beautifully taught—by example—that we, ourselves, might live more completely the gospel of Jesus Christ. May our lives reflect the knowledge we have that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that we are led today by another prophet of God—even President Gordon B. Hinckley."



http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/lds-magazin ... gn-eng.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"With other latter-day prophets, I testify of the truthfulness of this “most correct of any book on earth,”  even the Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Christ. Its message spans the earth and brings its readers to a knowledge of the truth. It is my testimony that the Book of Mormon changes lives. May each of us read it and reread it. And may we joyfully share our testimonies of its precious promises with all of God’s children."

Interesting you quote these two. The abstract of that paper specifically says:

Thomas S. Monson, the president of the LDS Church, has not borne testimony of any of his church's unique foundational doctrines including the truth of the Book of Mormon or the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith in any of the church's General Conference meetings since October of 2005.

In other words - you found the last time in general conference that President Monson bore his testimony of Joseph Smith. The other quote you provided was in an ensign article, some of which is actually discussed in the article...and this is also not a general conference talk.

Yes - the scope of the article is limited. But over 8 years of talks / ensign articles shouldn't there be something more that one article that briefly touches on these important foundational doctrines?

Note - I haven't formed any opinion as to "why" there is an apparent lack, but it is an interesting discovery.

Not trying to offend here but this whole thread borders on the absurd. Time and again I hear people here say that we need to focus more on the Savior and bear witness of his reality in all our meetings. That is what Pres. Monson has done time and again in his testimony. Now for doing so he is brought under suspicion that he does not belief in the restoration anymore. That is just loco. He speaks on many different themes in conference. His talks center around those themes. He always bears a solemn witness that the work in which we are engaged in as a church and a people is true and vital in bringing about the Lords purposes. That encompasses the restoration and all the principles of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

My main contention centered on the statement made in the article that said: "The hypotheses that this avoidance is intentional and that Monson does not fully believe in these doctrines are proposed and supported with numerous evidences and lines of argument."

This is where the author goes off the rails. No agenda here right? 8-| His hypothesis that he says is supported by evidence is a load of bunk. He has no evidence that Pres. Monson no longer believes in the Book of Mormon or the mission of Joseph Smith or any other foundational gospel truth. None whatsoever. In fact to the contrary Pres. Monson has worked tirelessly to further the work and mission of the restored church for most of his life. He has never given one iota of doubt that he isn't 100% committed to the work of The Lord and the continued progress of the church that began through the courage of Joseph. This to me is a form of character assassination aime at a Prophet of the Lord by someone who has an agenda to weaken faith and paint doubts. No spirit of charity exists in this kind of witchhunt.

+1

Geesh, all this talk has anyone used their free time to serve their fellow man? Seems like a lot of wasted energy and time on nonsense. Serve!! Love!! Follow the savior!!

So basically, the title of this thread is right.

AussieOi wrote:So basically, the title of this thread is right.

This is kind of surprising to me, but yes, maybe it is.

I can't find anything myself...but I hope that someone will.

infowarrior said he did it, posted 2 videos,(but he must not have watched them?) one was a scripted movie thing where they are talking about how the BoM was printed and TSM looked MUCH younger we're talking like 10 years ago. But he did say some good stuff.

The other may have been more recent, and was at GC, and TSM did come close to doing it-- saying something like "this work we are engaged in is true, the Lord is at the helm" so that may sound like a pass, but still FAR from unequivocal language and nothing about the restoration, this church, joseph, BoM etc. Still a good testimony though.

Infowarrior then said he would post more but didn't....

Further down people cited things that were 8 yearsish old as mentioned...

Other people playing it off, saying you can't have it both ways, like he can't bear testimony of Book of Mormon and the Savior in the same 8 year period...

Not sure if people understand here. No one is saying anything bad about President Monson. At least I'm not. It is just a curious thing. I thought no way would this be true. Doesn't mean anything, but it gives some insight into the fact that how I perceive things may not be how they really are-- because I thought he was doing it every year!

No big deal, just interesting.

And for those who attempt to explain away the details through long posting and reasoning...there are many on here like me, who lurk, and read, and we just want the facts. Opinions of random anonymous online personalities are nice, facts are better. And this is one of those things that no one can receive a good or bad feeling about to vouch for its truthfulness, as it is concrete and part of the historical record.

I appreciate everyone on here, but come one, if you can't agree on something that is a recent historical fact...how could you ever agree about any deeper issues.

Of course I would still love to see the title being proven wrong. Like Ajax said, -hey bro Aussie, here is the link that I believe disproves this- and then provide the link. A transcription would be okay too.

hyloglyph wrote:

AussieOi wrote:So basically, the title of this thread is right.

This is kind of surprising to me, but yes, maybe it is.

I can't find anything myself...but I hope that someone will.

infowarrior said he did it, posted 2 videos,(but he must not have watched them?) one was a scripted movie thing where they are talking about how the BoM was printed and TSM looked MUCH younger we're talking like 10 years ago. But he did say some good stuff.

The other may have been more recent, and was at GC, and TSM did come close to doing it-- saying something like "this work we are engaged in is true, the Lord is at the helm" so that may sound like a pass, but still FAR from unequivocal language and nothing about the restoration, this church, joseph, BoM etc. Still a good testimony though.

Infowarrior then said he would post more but didn't....

Further down people cited things that were 8 yearsish old as mentioned...

Other people playing it off, saying you can't have it both ways, like he can't bear testimony of Book of Mormon and the Savior in the same 8 year period...

Not sure if people understand here. No one is saying anything bad about President Monson. At least I'm not. It is just a curious thing. I thought no way would this be true. Doesn't mean anything, but it gives some insight into the fact that how I perceive things may not be how they really are-- because I thought he was doing it every year!

No big deal, just interesting.

And for those who attempt to explain away the details through long posting and reasoning...there are many on here like me, who lurk, and read, and we just want the facts. Opinions of random anonymous online personalities are nice, facts are better. And this is one of those things that no one can receive a good or bad feeling about to vouch for its truthfulness, as it is concrete and part of the historical record.

I appreciate everyone on here, but come one, if you can't agree on something that is a recent historical fact...how could you ever agree about any deeper issues.

Of course I would still love to see the title being proven wrong. Like Ajax said, -hey bro Aussie, here is the link that I believe disproves this- and then provide the link. A transcription would be okay too.

I think you are straining at gnats fueled by an article written by an anti Mormon designed to cause division and contention. I think it's obvious that he testifies constantly on the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel and of Christ. What more can he say? What's the goal of this article anyway? Think about it.

hyloglyph wrote:

AussieOi wrote:So basically, the title of this thread is right.

This is kind of surprising to me, but yes, maybe it is.

I can't find anything myself...but I hope that someone will.

infowarrior said he did it, posted 2 videos,(but he must not have watched them?) one was a scripted movie thing where they are talking about how the BoM was printed and TSM looked MUCH younger we're talking like 10 years ago. But he did say some good stuff.

The other may have been more recent, and was at GC, and TSM did come close to doing it-- saying something like "this work we are engaged in is true, the Lord is at the helm" so that may sound like a pass, but still FAR from unequivocal language and nothing about the restoration, this church, joseph, BoM etc. Still a good testimony though.

Infowarrior then said he would post more but didn't....

Further down people cited things that were 8 yearsish old as mentioned...

Other people playing it off, saying you can't have it both ways, like he can't bear testimony of Book of Mormon and the Savior in the same 8 year period...

Not sure if people understand here. No one is saying anything bad about President Monson. At least I'm not. It is just a curious thing. I thought no way would this be true. Doesn't mean anything, but it gives some insight into the fact that how I perceive things may not be how they really are-- because I thought he was doing it every year!

No big deal, just interesting.

And for those who attempt to explain away the details through long posting and reasoning...there are many on here like me, who lurk, and read, and we just want the facts. Opinions of random anonymous online personalities are nice, facts are better. And this is one of those things that no one can receive a good or bad feeling about to vouch for its truthfulness, as it is concrete and part of the historical record.

I appreciate everyone on here, but come one, if you can't agree on something that is a recent historical fact...how could you ever agree about any deeper issues.

Of course I would still love to see the title being proven wrong. Like Ajax said, -hey bro Aussie, here is the link that I believe disproves this- and then provide the link. A transcription would be okay too.

There was a whole issue of the ensign in Oct 2011 devoted exclusively to the Book of Mormon. Pres Monson gave the 1st Presidency message. I posted it a few posts up. It is a wonderful issue with many wonderful testimonies from several of our Prophets including Pres. Monson about the Book of Mormon and Josephs Prophetic call. I will post it again. I still think the theme of this whole thread is just so disingenuous and really lacking in sincerity. It has a gotcha mentality attached to it and is aimed at destroying faith and smearing Pres. Monson. Whatever floats your boat I guess..

http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/lds-magazin ... gn-eng.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With other latter-day prophets, I testify of the truthfulness of this “most correct of any book on earth,”  even the Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Christ. Its message spans the earth and brings its readers to a knowledge of the truth. It is my testimony that the Book of Mormon changes lives. May each of us read it and reread it. And may we joyfully share our testimonies of its precious promises with all of God’s children. ◼

TSM from the 2011 Ensign linked to above. This seems pretty clear testimony to me. I didn't read the article linked in the OP so I don't know what sort of requirements he is imposing.

Gad wrote:

With other latter-day prophets, I testify of the truthfulness of this “most correct of any book on earth,”  even the Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Christ. Its message spans the earth and brings its readers to a knowledge of the truth. It is my testimony that the Book of Mormon changes lives. May each of us read it and reread it. And may we joyfully share our testimonies of its precious promises with all of God’s children. ◼

TSM from the 2011 Ensign linked to above. This seems pretty clear testimony to me. I didn't read the article linked in the OP so I don't know what sort of requirements he is imposing.

+1