ozzy

Members
  • Posts

    335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ozzy

  1. I recommend the CES manual "Teachings of the Living Prophets" to those determining what is and isn't doctrine as far as the brethren go. Chapter four is especially helpful. Aside from that, I would just like to point out that the majority of the time what the prophet adn apostles say in conference or in public with the intent of teaching can be found rather easily in the scriptures. In only a few cases (like with gambling) must one even consider their teachings an interpretation and all such teachings have proven themselves worthy over time. I think the largest problem is not so much in the words of the brethren in conference, as it is in their words in personal publications such as 'Mormon Doctrine'. I will point out that these books are not doctrine of the church. I don't do this as a matter of my interpretation, but because they themselves say so in the introduction. McConkie himself stated in the introduction something along the lines of that the book was not intended to be official church teaching. All such books that I have come across recently have such statements and therefore we may rest assured that while perhaps highly inspired or wise in their writing, such publications are not doctrinally binding. And again, most things in the ensign and conference are centered wholly in scripture. Whether or not the words themselves are doctrinally binding, their foundation is. If on the off chance it isn't found in the scriptures, then it is wisdom based on personal experience and not necessarily binding to us.
  2. I dunno much about the encyclopedia, but as for gospel principles, the fact that it is a gospel doctrine class text indicates to me that it is worthwhile and won't run the same way as MD. Same with Preach My Gospel. Missionaries wouldn't be instructed to use it world-wide if it wasn't worth it. Not that the scriptures aren't great, I just thought I would add some supportive words for other things that the church actually does accept as doctrine or at least inspired instruction.
  3. In my opinion, an even better source for simplified stepwise LDS doctrine than gospel principles is Preach My Gospel. It provides the very foundation of doctrine that we should be built on and my support for that statement is that it is a huge source of study for today's missionaries. I would go so far as to say that anything that goes against what it says (and it is entirely based on scripture, hence my bold claims) is against the doctrine of the church, and any personal bar raising with regard to its teachings are just that... personal. It is a simplified and highly supported compilation of doctrine designed so that even the newest members of the church can understand it. As for the works of McConkie, Kimball, or any other individual past or present I can say only two things. All such publications come with a statement in the introduction informing the reader that the book is not church doctrine. The second is that when considering doctrine, we are taught that the words of the living prophets have position ahead of those of dead prophets.
  4. In my opinion, an even better source for simplified stepwise LDS doctrine than gospel principles is Preach My Gospel. It provides the very foundation of doctrine that we should be built on and my support for that statement is that it is a huge source of study for today's missionaries. I would go so far as to say that anything that goes against what it says (and it is entirely based on scripture, hence my bold claims) is against the doctrine of the church, and any personal bar raising with regard to its teachings are just that... personal. It is a simplified and highly supported compilation of doctrine designed so that even the newest members of the church can understand it. As for the works of McConkie, Kimball, or any other individual past or present I can say only two things. All such publications come with a statement in the introduction informing the reader that the book is not church doctrine. The second is that when considering doctrine, we are taught that the words of the living prophets have position ahead of those of dead prophets.
  5. To the OP: Well if you mean how I see the world locally, I must admit that I have two main views. I see first of all a world in which most of the people here (Rexburg ID) are good people and do their best to live the gospel. I find that it is actually a beautiful place to live, contrary to my ideas a couple years ago. I also find a number of radical crackpots who basically dim the splendor of the area by doing one of two things. They either fight the system intensely and try to drag others down, or they spend all their time worrying about what others do and judge them for it. If you mean the world as a whole, I think that it is largely a good place filled with a lot of good people trying to live how they think best.
  6. To the OP: Sure its possible to escape 'mormon culture' and still be a good mormon. I will go so far as to say that it is possible to drink caffeinated beverages and watch R rated movies and still be a good mormon. I won't say those are the best ideas, but you can still be a good mormon. I don't personally mind most of mormon culture. There are two main things that bug me most, one being part of mormon culture and the other being the opposite of mormon culture. The first is present when individuals are so entrenched in mormon culture that they spend all of their time nitpicking how they live and, more importantly, how others live. The other is when individuals are so bent on avoiding mormon culture that they actively work to tear down the morals of those around them to what they consider to be the right level. I don't mean those who correct the radical nitpickers, I mean those who even try to break down those who are only living the basics.
  7. 1. All my life (23 years) 2. Initially, I was born in it. 3. At least 3 times a week, depending on the meetings. I participate as fully as possible when I am awake. :) 4. Both. The various commandments of the Lord require it. Besides, if I didn't practice it at all times whether in a group or not, then I could not rightfully say I was truly practicing it. 5. Only with relationship to individuals who have misunderstandings of my faith. It is very rare that an issue ever even comes up, and only once has it been a problem. And even then, it wasn't really a problem. 6. I would define my relationship as very good. I am quite happy where I am and do what I can to contribute. I receive the satisfaction of knowing that I am participating in God's established organization, and I receive the joy of knowing that when I have my family, I will be able to have that family forever.
  8. I wish I had more time to read mine for fun. I'm sure I could enjoy them but I just feel too rushed. And lets face it. Harry Potter is just so much better at keeping my attention. :)
  9. I would have to say that my immunology textbook is the worst closely followed by my Biochemistry textbook. I am sorry that I can't offer an opinion about like a true book, but its just been so long since I had time to read a real one.
  10. Duuuude, thats cool. As a girls name mine was 781 in the '90s and as a boys name it was 418. What can I say, I'm an odd ball. :)
  11. Bluejay: Thanks, I will have to check that out. BYUI probably gets the idea that laws are greater from the fact that God only has laws and no theories. As with most things though, they don't tend to recognize that the world views things quite differently, even in the realm of science. I was quite impressed to find any evolutionists there at all. Bugs huh? Thats pretty awesome stuff. I'm from Oklahoma and we have some pretty wierd ones. It was always unnerving to find out that I had brown recluses under my dresser again. :) Say, do you happen to know what those ones are that are shaped like ants but are huge, black and orange, and have a sting of fire?
  12. I personally am uncomfortable in similar situations, but that doesn't mean its against the law of chastity or that there is anything wrong here. After all, the Provo MTC had the tree of life at one time (If anyone doesn't know what that is, it is basically a set of shower heads coming off of a single poll. There are generally no curtains). Beside that, the situation Mute describes is present even in the BYUI gym which we all know the reputation the BYU schools have for their strict interpretations of what is and isn't right.
  13. Bluejay: Good point, I did dumb down the definitions quite a bit. I personally place laws above theory partially because here at BYUI they have taught us that a law is greater, and partially because to me the generalized definitions of the two suggest that laws are greater. In any case, I still find the absolutist arguments for and against evolution to be fundamentally flaud. Anyway, it is nice to meet a fellow biologist. Whats your field? I am a microbio major so I guess I am not quite there yet but up and coming anyway.
  14. First, 'scrambling' isn't quite the word I would use to describe my response. Second, I am not sure it will do any good to explain anything because you obviously have deep set preconceived notions which in my experience make it impossible to explain anything. But I will try anyway. Third, I apologize if my tone is less than soothing or sugary or whatever. I am just trying to adopt the attitude displayed by your opening statement. I also don't think it is productive to act in a way contrary to what I think. Your argument surrounding how we pray proves by itself that you haven't thought much about this. I would point out that we begin our prayers addressing the Father which shows that we pray to Him, not to Christ. We pray through Christ as a mediator between ourselves and the Father. As such, it is flawed to state that we place Christ above the Father. You also seem to have missed the part where we believe that God sent His son to atone for us. We have appreciation for both for their respective sacrifices. In any case, we didn't put Christ anywhere. He did it himself. You can't blame us for acknowledging this in our teachings. Yes we put Christs name in everything. We do everything in his name. This is because he is a mediator. Every ounce of actual worship that we do is directed at the Father. Your final statement makes no sense at all. Either you haven't taken the time of day to study what we actually believe, or you are just trying to be argumentative. There is no sidelining of either Christ or the Father. Everything we do is centered on worshiping God and following the example of His son in doing so. We put both of their names into pretty much everything. There is no small print. Until you have decided to understand the basics of our doctrines, teachings, and practices, I have no inclination to try settle your polytheism/trinity concern. Besides, is the trinity any less confusing? You have an immortal being become a man and die (contrary to being immortal) just to become immortal again. And through this he is also supposed to exist as both a physical being and a being of no substance, sometimes appearing in multiple forms and other times talking/praying to himself.
  15. I don't know if anyone has said the following as yet, but I doubt it. To believe that evolution is utterly false is ignorance. We as men ourselves have brought about the evolution of things. My favorite example is corn. Corn did not exist longer than 1500 years ago in its current form. It used to be a grass with a couple dozen seeds until native americans bred it into what it is now. As it stands, this is what most people consider to be evolution. My second favorite example is house pets. Most breeds of house pets are far newer than the world and display a drastically varied physiology from their ancestors, again as a result of men breeding them. On the other hand, to claim that evolution as we presently see it is the end all be all of creation is foolish and blind. The ideas surrounding the evolutionary ancestry of living species change enough that no evolutionist in their right mind can think we have it nailed down. Finally, there has never been any doctrinal statement made surrounding evolution. The closest things we have are isolated statements by a couple apostles which cast a disbelieving shadow, and a couple of statements by presidencies claiming basically that we have no idea what happened when. On the subject of those 2 instances that I am aware of wherein apostles spoke against evolution, there are a few issues to consider. First of all, apostles aren't always right. Proof is in the statements by a number of them concerning blacks. Most, if not all of such statements were later apologized for by the speakers. Evolution will probably not share that specific trait, but that does not mean that those statements may be taken as doctrine. Second, looking specifically at President (then Elder) Packers statement, he follows his anti-evolution statement with an almost counterargument. He says that when we understand the workings of God, our perception of evolution will alter immensly (not a quote). But he does not say in that statement that it does not happen in any form. Thirdly, looking specifically at Elder Christoffersons (I think? may have been Cook) talk this last conference, his statement was that those who believe in evolution would not respect their bodies as they should (again, not a quote). This is clearly an opinion as I personally believe in at least some form of evolution and know many who believe in the current theory, who are as respectful to their bodies as the prophet himself. Fourth, I have noticed a couple of threads denounce evolution as a theory. Technically this is incorrect. A scientific theory is a current idea and understanding of a series of observations surrounding a subject, which idea has not been proven irrevocably false by counterobservations. Evolution is exactly this. The idea morphs, but does not fall. The only true arguments against it are grounded in a few interpretations of doctrinal/scriptural implications. Such interpretations have led to what we now observe in the world as a complete lack of unity of doctrines and therefore cannot be even remotely accepted by science as proof that evolution is thoroughly incorrect. As a side note, even Elder Packer, in the middle of thrashing evolution, stated that it was a theory. What should be understood is that evolution is not a law. The theory has not been (nor can be in this life) perfect to be irrevocable and so remains a theory. Thats my 2 cents worth.
  16. I see, sorry I wasn't aware of his Jewish side.
  17. On the subject of only Jewish writers, as Rameumptom pointed out, some of the letters of Paul may have been written by later Gentile Christians. Unless I am mistaken, even if Paul wrote them, he was Roman which, again assuming I am not mistaken, means he wasn't Jewish. Unless you count his baptism which I would think at this time would qualify him as a Gentile Christian, not a Jew.
  18. True, the Nephites didn't have the term 'Bible.' However they were still well aware of the record of the Jews (having a copy themselves) and the term 'Bible' was probably just the best translation of the reformed egyptian word used. Its kind of like at the end of Jacob where 'Adieu' is used. It's not that they had it, it just that its the best representation that we have for the idea that they were trying to convey.
  19. I know its sad that I can't remember where this is because it is quite popular, but President Packers talk made me think of the revelation involving the constitution hanging by a thread and the leaders of the nation turning to the leaders of the church for help. Assuming that I am not making that revelation up, I think that this talk exemplifies why this is the case. In every case where a societies morals decline, significant problems arise that can only be solved through faith and obedience. President Packer here expresses that we will be just that.
  20. Totally. Okay I wasn't in tears but I still thought it was way awesome.
  21. Sorry Pam. One aspect of conference for me this session is that one of my roommates has only been a member for about 2 months. Somehow this added a whole new dynamic to watching conference. I can definitely say that this is one of the best I have had.
  22. Totally fair and I deserve that completely. Its a principle that I support but sadly I am not perfect in my love for others and part of that imperfection is a lack of understanding towards those who blatantly and seriously defy church policy or the commandments or whatever under the premise that the words of the prophets don't apply to them. For me it makes it worse when they support themselves by claiming that God is allowing them to continue and even supports it.
  23. The ones where he was talking about the personal line of revelation not contradicting the priesthood ones.
  24. I'm somewhat interested to hear the response of those who have convinced themselves that the spirit has revealed something to them contrary to these laws and contrary to the statements of Elder Oaks.
  25. I find it kind of funny how a discussion on the necessity of being exposed to anti-mormon literature has altered to a discussion of a political parody or whatever it is. Anyway, I personally don't think it is very necessary to check out anti-mormon stuff just to get an idea of their arguments. It may work for some people, but I have found that simply knowing actual truth has served me just fine when encountering individuals who want to argue with me. At the end of the day, there is no point whatsoever in arguing with antimormons. They are thoroughly convinced of the imagined devilish nature of the church and base their arguments in things the church doesn't even actually believe. If they can be so convinced of imagined jargon, what good will arguing with them do? Especially since the spirit of contention is almost guaranteed to be present at such an encounter and would thus drive away any semblance of the true spirit unless the one arguing truth was specifically called to do so. Without the spirit present, both parties will come thoroughly convinced that they are correct and will leave equally convinced.