Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

mdfxdb

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    712

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mdfxdb

  1. mdfxdb
    You are a full tithe payer as of the day you start paying a full tithe. There is no such thing as "falling behind". Write your next tithing check on 10% of your increase. From that moment you are a full tithe payer on your most recent paycheck/monies received. Keep doing it. Being a full tithe payer is between you and the Lord. The bishop will record your statement that you are or are not a full tithe payer.
  2. mdfxdb
    I wouldn't accept it. Is he a potential business associate? No reason to accept it. I know you think you are trying to make the right decision here. You can forgive without accepting the Linkedin invite. You can leave the badness in the past by deciding to do so. Believe me he didn't send the linkedin invite hoping you would accept and forgive.
  3. mdfxdb
    He is a recent convert. Wait the year. See what happens. It sounds like you both have had pasts, and are in some ways still dealing with them. It is important that you get those dealt with before you move forward into something as important as a marriage. You should wait a year not only to be ready to marry in the temple, but also to get to know the person you are contemplating as a spouse. After a year you will have a better understanding who this person is, and how committed they really are to the gospel, and the lds lifestyle. You have found someone on a spiritual high, and are getting caught up in it with him, but make sure it lasts before you commit.
  4. mdfxdb
    The revealed policies as pertains to the doctrines of the church are extremely important, in fact this why we have prophets, seers, and revelators. They also receive doctrine, and implement it as previously explained. There is no other way. If us lay people interpret the canon of scripture/doctrine for ourselves without the guidance of our prophets, we are lost.
  5. mdfxdb
    "The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone.These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” Official Doctrine. Brigham H. Roberts, sermon of 10 July 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle, printed in Deseret News (23 July 1921) “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.” GA’s consistent with Standard Works. Elder Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye In Holy Places, pp. 162-3, "The Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address delivered to seminary and institute teachers, BYU, July 8, 1964
  6. mdfxdb
    I am astounded that there are questions about such things. Let's review these: omegaseamaster75, on 19 Dec 2014 - 09:51 AM, said: Women and the priesthood- Policy or Doctrine that they do not have it (the priesthood)? Both, obviously. - um are you sure? Policy for sure, Doctrine not so sure. omegaseamaster75, on 19 Dec 2014 - 09:51 AM, said: Not submitting the names of Holocaust victims to be submitted for baptism for the dead unless they are direct decedents- Policy or Doctrine? Clearly our present policy, and just as clearly not a Church doctrine. - clearly policy omegaseamaster75, on 19 Dec 2014 - 09:51 AM, said: You cannot be serious in such questions. Clearly, these are neither doctrinal matters nor issues of policy. - crucifix - policy not doctrine, white shirt - policy (sometimes. read the handbook) not doctrine, sacrament with right hand. well that was a dumb one. omegaseamaster75, on 19 Dec 2014 - 09:51 AM, said: Based on this post, the most reasonable conclusion I can reach is that you have no idea what you're saying. it matters very much the difference between policy and doctrine. to be honest the most reasonable conclusion that I can reach is you care not for the distinction, and you have no idea what you're saying.
  7. mdfxdb
    So prove that those things stated by the prophets are not doctrine? Prove the negative? Just because a prophet has an idea, and the 12 agree with him does not make it doctrine. The process for establishing doctrine has been covered.
  8. mdfxdb
    Um, because that's not how it happened. I looked really hard in D&C and didn't find anything stating that blacks couldn't have the priesthood. Definition by the First Presidency and quorum of the 12 is only part of the process towards doctrine. Current infomation information provided by the church points to the fact that it was policy. Which for some reason you don't think the first presidency, or quorum of the 12 is aware of.
  9. mdfxdb
    Funny, I don't remember giving my bishop the title to my land/house/posessions.......For the record, I know exactly what we promise when we covenant the law of consecration, but some parts of it are definately not practiced today as a matter of policy. You're not tiresome. Whatever I say you will be contrary, or nitpick. It's fine.
  10. mdfxdb
    yep, that's right, sounds exactly like what I've stated..... :-/ for the record, I ran into the missionaries tonight. Asked them if the Ban on blacks having the priesthood was policy or doctrine.....They said it was policy. You define "doctrine" as everything that comes out of a prophets mouth, which by your definition is the same as "policy". if that is the case then they are incapable of error, and if we exercise any form of dissent, we are apostates. Better that we are mindless drones blindly oblivious to the distinction and power of words.
  11. mdfxdb
    No, they were not intentionally misleading in 1949. that doesn't mean they were right You are covenanted to live the law of consecration. If and when the policy is changed you are expected to live the law of consecration.
  12. mdfxdb
    I believe the process as to how doctrine is defined and put into canon has already been covered here. But since it doesn't match up with what you think it ought to be I guess it doesn't matter...
  13. mdfxdb
    It isn't pointless because words matter. Surely they also didn't worry that those who pointed out the fact they used the wrong words would be branded apostates. Believe it or not. It's ok that they were wrong. It in no way diminishes their "prophetness"
  14. mdfxdb
    "Not only is the gospel to go, on a priority basis and harmonious to a divine timetable, to one nation after another, but the whole history of God’s dealings with men on earth indicates that such has been the case in the past; it has been restricted and limited where many people are concerned. . . . There have been these problems, and the Lord has permitted them to arise. There isn’t any question about that. We do not envision the whole reason and purpose behind all of it; we can only suppose and reason that it is on the basis of our premortal devotion and faith." This proves my whole point. The priesthood is available to all. That is doctrine. However, the Lord's policy is/was to restrict it as he sees fit. Thus, the ban on blacks holding the priesthood may have been an inspired policy, but it was never doctrine. That it was taught as doctrine was a mistake/fault/error on the part of those using the wrong words to describe the Lords policies. In effect when the leaders of the church referred to it as doctrine, they got it wrong. That we in our limited understanding equate policy with doctrine is purely because we do not have the vision of the Lords full purpose.
  15. mdfxdb
    Doctrine: Plural Marriage Policy: don't do it Doctrine: law of consecration Policy: don't do it
  16. mdfxdb
    I'm saying it never was doctrine. only policy and yes something could be both doctrine and policy
  17. mdfxdb
    From an address by Elder Bruce R McConkie in 1978. "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." "It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject." Point to me the revelation/scripture which states the doctrine of Blacks are not to have the priesthood. If there was, then it is superceded by the 1978 declaration, any statements to the contrary are trumped by the official declaration of the first presidency, which has been in our canon of scripture ever since. I have looked very hard through D&C, the Book of Mormon, the Bible. I can't seem to find the 1949 statement anywhere... From the statements on LDS.org: "Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.16" Reference 16: Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” 21-22. It is possible that Brigham Young received revelation restricting Blacks from the Priesthood, however it was not doctrine. It was the policy of the church. It is apparent in light of newer revelation that the bretheren in 1949 got it wrong, and so did Brigham Young. Wrong because they let people believe it was doctrinal. They spoke with limited understanding and without light and knowledge which we now posess.
  18. mdfxdb
    "These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.4 At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such." Stealing part of the quote from the article, different emphasis added: "They have the right, the power, and authority to declare the mind and will of God to his people, subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. " The THEY in this sentence directly refers to the apostles, and first presidency. Granted the Prophet has veto power. But this sentence speaks to the structure used for establishing doctrine, and scripture. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng If we believe what Joseph Smith taught about prophets and revelation, then added discernment is required. This is why the revelatory process for doctrine is established with the 12 and the first presidency, so no one man can set doctrine and include it in our cannon of scripture. Not every word spoken by a prophet is "ex cathedra" Let's not presume that President Monson is unaware of the distinction between policy and doctrine, nor what it says on the web-page regarding the POLICY, of blacks and the priesthood. Those articles are a BIG DEAL, don't kid yourself into thinking the 12, and the first presidency haven't read them.
  19. mdfxdb
    I clicked on the link. Good read. Revelation is important, but does not always constitute doctrine. I guess this is why all of Joseph Smith's revelations are not contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, and are not considered doctrine. Clearly some will not believe that the POLICY of denying blacks the priesthood was not doctrine until President Monson states he had a revelation stating that it was not doctrine.
  20. mdfxdb
    But you are saying they don't. You are saying that if I say "the church was wrong with regards to blacks and the Priesthood", then I am skirting the filthy edges of apostasy. Either they got it wrong or they didn't. Much like how the "translation" of the Book of Mormon is portrayed. calling a spade a spade does not an apostate make. Policy is not doctrine. Regardless of what has been stated by previous prophets. Their pronouncements are only doctrinal when they are speaking as the prophet. Those doctrines are carefully recorded and canonized.
  21. mdfxdb
    I actually agree with this. My point is that when our leaders get it wrong, or when the "church" gets it wrong they should say they got it wrong.
  22. mdfxdb
    Maybe unimportant to a true believer like you. To those who have not spent the time researching and learning and building faith it is a big deal. Most (the masses) do not take time to do independent research. Most rely heavily on what they are spoon fed in SS. So it is important to get it right.
  23. mdfxdb
    I completely agree with all of this.
  24. mdfxdb
    Poorly worded. My fault. Sunday school implies,and shows pictures of Joseph Smith actually reading golden plates, and dictating them to his scribe. The picture previously shown with Joseph looking at plates, with a curtain separating him from his scribe is what we were taught in Sunday School. But it didn't really happen that way. It is important because there are / were generations of church members who assumed, rightly or wrongly that the SS depiction/picture were accurate.
  25. mdfxdb
    Nobody really thinks there were leopards on the american continent. That is a matter of fact. Not a historical teaching that is not clear about a process from which came the keystone of our religion.