Doctrine_Guy

Actually, no. Still not my problem. I don't have to have everyone agree with me. I'm perfectly content to let you completely despise anything I write, and I won't even loose sleep over it. My suggestion would be Mingled_With_Scripture_Guy Good one, maybe next time.

Except that the nursery will be empty during Sacrament meetings so there won't be any other little ones there.

First off, the Bishop did NOT tell her not to breast feed. Simply asked her to do it in another part of the building. There's a big difference. Second, what occurs during Sacrament meeting IS the bishop's stewardship. He has more insight as to the whole ward is more aware of any distractions/problems this may have caused. And finally, it's not against the law for him to ask her to do it elsewhere. Only for him to demand she leaves. Once again, there is a difference between demanding she leaves and asking her to leave. Like I said, if she wants to rely strictly on law, then don't change a thing. But if she is wise, she will respect the wishes of her priesthood leaders. But my point is, in a disagreement with priesthood leaders that VAST majority of instances results from the member being wrong, not the leader. Nothing in any of the OP's statements said she had prayed about it or received witness from the spirit that she was correct. She was going solely by her thoughts and feelings, not necessarily the spirit. So, I would wager that after they discussed it, they would both come to a good solution and agree. But if not, the probability is that the leader is correct. We do need to seek confirmation. However, our confirmation from the spirit should be the same as that given to the leader. If it doesn't, it is not our place to judge that the Bishop is unrighteous. It is the Stake President's stewardship to make sure of the Bishop's righteousness. In a case like this, I guarantee that the spirit will not tell the OP to completely disregard the bishop. It's just not going to happen. Again, the Lord will not allow his servants to lead us astray. If both the bishop and the stake president agree on a proper course, it's going to be the right one. If you believe anything different, then I don't believe you have a proper understanding of sustaining leaders.

As I said, my writing style is pugnacious (aggressive). I will write as if i'm right. That's just how I do it. You don't like it, sorry, not my problem. (Why don't you just admit you don't like me because of the breastfeeding thread) If you don't like my name, think up a new name for me and I'll change it. That's just what popped into my head when I signed up. (And I'm leaving you wide open for an out of the park burn right here)

Ok fine, you win, I give up. Is that what you want me to say? Everything I've always been taught, and all my impressions from every time I've ever read the scriptures or taught Gospel Doctrine leads me to believe the flood was world wide. If you all want to disagree and have a scientific probability discussion, be my guest. But this thread is starting to get too contentious, so I'm through discussing it.

I'm not presenting mine as the only one. I'm just telling what I've always been taught. Never claimed I'm the supreme authority. Seriously people, lighten up. Not even one single laugh or smirk at my pathetic attempts at humor??

To Wingnut: Did I ever claim you have to believe me? Nope. Believe me or not, makes no difference to me one way or the other. To Pam: I'm not saying he's a crackpot or anything. It was a very well written brochure, but that doesn't make it doctrine. He may be a very well respected writer, but his writings are not scripture. (p.s. I was going to make a crack about you being a chargers fan, but that probably wouldn't be a good idea, huh? Let me just say that on a different board, my screen name is Broncos_guy) To Soulsearcher: I'll accept they are a well-meaning group, probably with some very smart people working there. But that doesn't change the fact that they are not affiliated with the Church, and they have no more authority to define doctrine than I do. To HiJolly, Thank you. That is a much better reference than anything else so far. And I actually believe that it strengthens my position to some degree. In other words, Doctrine must 1-agree with the standard works and 2- be consistently proclaimed in official publications. So, putting my referenced articles to the test we see that all assertions made therein are based upon the standard works. And the fact that there were multiple articles, not just one isolated statement, shows consistency within official publications. Whereas, the space statement given was not backed by the standard works, was not in any publications, and was never repeated. At this point, allow me to take a step backwards. It's obvious that I'm starting to get on everyone's nerves, and for that I give an unequivocal blanket apology. It is not my intention. I realize that my writing/speaking style is somewhat pugnacious and I tend to "stir the pot". Please know that no matter how I come off, I really do understand that I'm not the smartest guy in the world. I know I'm not always right. But I will give my opinion and do the best I can to back it up. When proven wrong, I'll admit it (though in this discussion I fear there is no way to prove who's right or wrong). So with that in mind let me take another quote from HiJolly's link: At the core of this question, I think we can agree that the most relevant and important points are that God keeps his promises, He sends prophets to warn people of their mistakes, and animals are tasty . . . oh wait . . . maybe not that last one (although they are).

With respect to anything the Bishop has stewardship over, if he and you have different "revelations", HIS as the presiding representative of God is the correct one. And as I explained, that does not mean you do anything he says on a whim, but after serious discussion of all the relevant issues/feelings/opinions and after serious thought and prayer, a priesthood leader's decision (when it is part of his stewardship to make such decisions) is the final word. Even in the extremely rare instance that a leader is being unrighteous and acting against the spirit, no church member will ever be punished for following their leaders. (the same cannot be said about going against your leaders because you "felt" you should) Again, if you really think they are out of line, it is up to the Stake authorities to judge whether the Bishop is acting with the spirit, not an individual's. But if the Stake and Bishop agree on the proper course (again, pertaining to something within their stewardship) then that is the correct course because the Lord will not allow his servants to lead people astray. AND I might add, you do have a right to "confirmation of the spirit" to any decision they make. And if you don't get the confirmation, chances are it's not their problem, it's your own. Do I need to be any clearer? **DISCLAIMER** My use of the word you is not a personal reference to any individual, but is rather a common general usage.

HAhahaha. Ok, in the first place this thing is written by some guy for the "Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research". Does that sound like the name of any kind of reputable source, or a bunch of people who want to apologize for any doctrine that offends someone. In the second place, they did a pretty good job of cutting and clipping different quotes to try to prove their opinion. But none of the quotes from any of the brethren say that general conferences addresses are not scripture. And third, since they're publication is by their own definition non-scriptural, then why should I believe it any more than Joe Shmoe's opinion? No thanks, I'll stick to what I've been taught in church for decades.

If you wonder, why don't you ask? I'll assume you're asking. That Jonah was swallowed by a big fish (not a whale) and spit out again so he could visit Nineveh. Actually, there was a news story several years ago off the coast of south America where a guy got swallowed by a giant grouper and got out 2 days later . . . somewhat digested, but alive. Why, are you going to tell me it was allegorical?? Maybe Jonah was just swimming in the water near the fish? Maybe there was a submarine named "big fish" that transported him?

As I understand it, "scripture" is 1- the Standard Works, 2- the Hymns, 3- Official Proclamations (i.e. the Family), 4 - Talks given in General Conference (not stake, ward or area conferences) and 5- The Ensign (not all church magazines or publications, only the Ensign. Although, I've heard only conference issues too, so admittedly this one is in question) But there are later references about Noah being the father of mankind as was Adam. I think Moses 7 or 8 talks about all nations being the seed of Noah.But lets say there were other people who survived, where's the scientific evidence of that? We know that Eden and the civilization that followed was in North America. We know that after the flood, Noah ended up in the Middle East. So, the flood had to have at very least covered north America and the Middle East. So if there were other people somewhere, tell me where?? All scientific evidence points to civilization beginning in the middle east. If there were survivors elsewhere, their evidences should be older, and either their civilizations have been completely obliterated or they simply haven't been found. Which is extremely hard to believe. Harder, in fact, than a global flood. As I understand it, "scripture" is 1- the Standard Works, 2- the Hymns, 3- Official Proclamations (i.e. the Family), 4 - Talks given in General Conference (not stake, ward or area conferences) and 5- The Ensign (not all church magazines or publications, only the Ensign. Although, I've heard only conference issues too, so admittedly this one is in question) But most of what we're discussing is from Moses and/or Abraham in the Pearl of Great price which were only written once and translated by Joseph so I don't buy that one.

Yes, Doctrine is eternal, unchanging, and independent of science. Doctrine is defined in scripture and by modern revelation. But if I can't demonstrate we will never learn it was local, you can't demonstrate that we will. Slip of the fingers. I was typing fast and had "general authorities" in my head. I did not intend the word "general" to be there. Just authorities (as in scholar types). The point was that it was in the Ensign, and the Ensign is considered scripture in that it is the current communication from the Brethren (though not on the same par as the standard works). And you'll notice that that statement was not at a general conference, nor printed in any of the church magazines. Even so, I consider there to be a big difference between giving an opinion of future events without any scriptural support, and making a statement about past events using scriptures as the basic foundation for those statements. I agree to a point. i don't care if the water covered the entire world or not (even though I believe it did), but as I've said before, my sticking point is that all humans in the entire world were destroyed. Now, if someone wants to believe that at that point humans only lived in the one area, therefore a localized flood would have got the job done *, so be it. I don't think it's worth arguing about in that situation. But if someone is claiming that some humans survived on the other side of the world, I find a problem with that. * though, that still doesn't explain how Noah went from North American before the flood, to the Middle east after the flood.

Everyone is getting way too up in arms about this thing. So I figured I might as well throw my hat into the ring. By background for being able to comment is that I am the father of 4 children and my wife breastfed them all (actually she's still feeding our 4th). I would have no problem with her feeding in sacrament meeting because she is very discreet, but she prefers the mothers lounge. (I think it's to get away from the rest of the kids and give me a "chance to grow" by taking care of them myself.) Point #1 - Obviously there is nothing wrong with breastfeeding, it's a great thing. Point #2 - The law says you can do it anywhere. So, if you base your actions on these 2 things, it's obvious you can just keep doing what your doing and anyone who tries to stop you can be charged with a crime. HOWEVER, that's not necessary and IMO it's not what Christ would do. Point #3 - There are people (especially boys) who will be uncomfortable with your actions, so their feelings must be considered. Adding this one to the mix changes things very little. Obviously they're in the wrong, not you, and you don't have to bend to their feelings, just consider them. Covering up and being discreet is all that is required by you, and you have done that. Point #4 - Sustaining priesthood leaders IS an important consideration. So, anything your Bishop asks you to do in the course of his calling must be seriously pondered, and when no resolution can be reached, his request needs to be honored above your own preferences. HOWEVER, priesthood leaders are men that make mistakes. While it is extremely unwise to dig your heels in and fight them, there is no reason that a problem can't be discussed calmly. Simply make sure he has all the facts and reasons for your actions. Chances are he'll reconsider, pray more fervently, and listen to the spirit to figure out the best solution. For example, has anyone been extended a calling that they absolutely did not want to do??? Is it correct to flatly refuse and be offended, or is it best to discuss why you think it's not for you? I have done this, and the result was that after further consideration he changed him mind and had a different calling for me. But, after the discussion if the bishop still extends the calling, then you had better pray pretty hard about it, because the chances are he's right. I hope the OP did discuss it with the Bishop and inform him of the law. But not in a confrontational "This is the law and if you don't follow it I'll have you arrested" kind of way. Simply informing him, and the stake, that you have the right to feed your child. Also explaining that you are discreet and covered. Also explaining the situation of the mothers room. In the end, I'm sure there will be a solution. The solution may be as easy as setting aside a classroom (or even the nursery) as a mothers lounge and covering the window with a curtain. But be aware the solution STILL might involve him asking you to refrain during Sacrament meeting, and that is not necessarily against the law. Obviously he can't force you to leave, but be aware, if he says "By law I cannot require you to leave, however I'm asking you as your Bishop to respect our wishes", then he is not breaking the law, but making a request as a priesthood leader. Whatever solution results, make sure you are not just being stubborn and putting your own preferences above the word of one of God's representatives. ** As a side note, yes there are instances when a bishop is unrighteous, but those instances are few and far between. If you suspect that is the case, then contact the Stake. I have never heard of both a Bishop and the Stake President being unrighteous, so if they agree and you disagree . . . . . well, you figure it out.

First, I did not claim the flood is tied to ALL the doctrines of the gospel. The flood is completely irrelevant in a discussion on tithing for example. I simply said the world wide flood is doctrinal, meaning it has been verified by scripture and modern revelation. You obviously didn't look at the 3 links I posted. 3 articles from the Ensign from general authorities who clearly state it was a world wide flood, not a localized one. Therefore, it IS doctrine. And here is a small quote from one just in case you don't bother to look it up yourself. If you want scientific evidence and explanation to everything before you believe it, I suggest you give me the scientific explanation of how Jesus turned water to wine, walked on water, turned a few loaves and fishes into enough food to feed 5000 people, and raised the dead.

Whether or not it was a complete flood has relevance in the grand scheme of things and is doctrinal. Whether or not my friend received a revelation and forgot it does not. There is no conflict here. EDIT: Actually, let me clarify. If you guys are arguing about whether the water level covered all land, I will say the same "who knows, who cares". What I do care about is the fact that all land-creatures were destroyed in the flood except those in the ark. If you want to argue that the flood was somehow contained in only the populated regions of earth * be my guest, so long as you're not disputing the important point. * that argument would pose problems as to how Noah got from the American continent before the flood, to the middle east after the flood.