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.

Also as one who's been in the hot seat, please try not to be super concerned with confidentiality. Of course the Bishop is not going to tell anyone who doesn't need to know, but there are some people who probably should know if they will play a role in helping you correct it. Your parents, for example, will probably need to know. I know for me, telling my parents was the hardest part of the whole deal. But they were very supportive. Being freaked about about "who knows" leads to being secretive, and it hinders the process. Everyone makes mistakes, even if some are bigger than others, but that is what repentance is for. And one you are clean again you can walk with your head high and fulfill your responsibilities in God's kingdom.

Great place to go. My wife graduated from BYU-I . . . . I graduated from RICKS (before the name change). And you are correct, no YW groups in the student wards.

I actually had a friend (scientific type) who struggled for years with the apparent conflict. He almost left the church over it. But he actually had a special fast to be able to reconcile it. He got an answer late that night that made the whole thing completely clear. The next morning he couldn't remember it. All he remembered was that he did get an answer that completely reconciled the whole thing. At least that's what he claimed. It's possible he just got sick of fighting it and come up with a good "faith promoting rumor". Who knows, who cares.

You really want to get deeper into this nit-picking? Because we could go to the original Greek and Hebrew texts to show that the word "fire" in the scriptures has been translated from at least 4 different ancient words, each with slightly different meanings. Working from any translation without a complete and working understanding of all original languages and nuances of ancient speech is obviously going to lead to this kind of thing, so I suggest we stop being ridiculous about it. I have already admitted that I probably jumped the gun about the "fire" bit. It may not be the same kind of fire I have in my wood stove, but the relevant point is that it will again eliminate all wickedness from the earth, the same way the flood did. I do still adamantly oppose the idea that the flood was not a worldwide occurrance. Sure, there might not be complete geological evidence (at least not that our brilliant modern scientists can understand), but neither is there a complete understanding of how Dinosaurs and fossil records can be reconciled with the fact that the Earth is not millions of years old. Therefore, in matters like these I yield to the highest authority, and take it on faith until such time as I have the ability to comprehend them. The relevant point here is that the flood did cover the whole earth and that every human and land animal except those in the ark were destroyed. There is ample reference to the fact in the scriptures and in modern day revelation. I'm not going to debate it further from a scientific standpoint. The Flood and the Tower of Babel Noah, the Great Preacher of Righteousness The Gospel and the Scientific View

Excellent answers so far. I just wanted to expound a bit concerning continued revelation. Throughout the Bible, especially the Old Testament, God had a pattern of communicating with his people. He spoke through prophets. Amos chapter 3 puts in nicely. The scripture is explaining that there are warnings and hints for most major events. (i.e. the trumpet sounding before a battle, when the lion roars it's because he has prey, etc.) Verse 7 says "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but* he revealeth his secrets unto his servants the prophets." Now these people had "scripture", mostly the writings of Moses. But the Lord still revealed new events through his living prophets. Furthermore, we read in Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." So if the Lord is the same, he will continue to follow his same method of communicating with people. Even though we have scriptures to learn from, it is essential for us to have more guidance. We see how many different ways people in the world understand the scriptures. Who is to say which interpretations are correct except for a living prophet? The whole idea that all revelation ended with the Bible is simply ludicrous. Most people who believe that way use Revelations 22:18 as their source. " For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" But is the scripture really talking about the book itself, or simply about the prophecies and doctrine outlined therein? Because if it's talking about the book itself, think about the history of the Bible for a second. When revelations was written, it was not the ending of the Bible. Bible is taken from a Greek word meaning "collection of books". All of the books and scrolls used in the bible were not even combined into one book until centuries after it was written. So if you take this passage to mean the book itself, then everything except Revelations is "adding to" it and the whole Bible, except Rev., is negated. And that is a ludicrous assumption. Furthermore, there is a similar passage in Deuteronomy that brings clarity to the passage in Revelations. Deut. 4:2 " Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Basically, we shall not take away from nor diminish the commandments of the Lord. But there is no qualifier limiting where the word of the Lord is found. So, yes, while we believe that Bible to be the word of God, we also believe the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, The Hymns, The Ensign magazine, and all proclamations and addresses given by General Authorities of the church during General Conference or other specified occasions is scripture. * the word shown as "but" is often translated "until"

Then if that's the case, the Nephite Civilization didn't constitute a "nation" and the scripture is still correct.

See, now that depends on your definition of "nation". The Nephites belong to the tribes (or nations) of Ephraim and Manasseh. So as long as any Ephraimites or Manassehites were in Jerusalem, the scripture is correct. Marginoferror, why don't you look up Charles Darwin. His Galapagos research pretty much says the same thing. I've seen the research, but if you want to see it, you'll have to look it up yourself. I'm simply explaining doctrine and giving a bit of scientific explanation on the side. Hordak, because the beast and the horsemen are being described in a revelatory vision that is by nature symbolic. Although, I do admit that the "fire" might not be actual fire like I have in my wood stove, but it will destroy and cleanse the earth the same way that the flood did. Do any of you seriously believe that not all people were destroyed from the earth during the flood?

Forgive me for butting into the discussion at this late interval, but I wanted to touch on just a couple of things from your last post. First, I think your bit about children of God touches on a point of doctrine that is very confusing to even some members of the church. We know Christ as our elder brother, our savior and redeemer, and also as our father. But in knowing him as father, it is not the same "Father" as our Father in Heaven. Confusing, huh? Let me try to break it down. 1 - we are all the Children of God the Father in that He created us spiritually. (created a.k.a organized from intelligences as previously discussed) Christ, or Jehovah, was the first of these intelligences that was organized by God the Father, and in that way is a spiritual sibling, hence the "elder brother". 2 - Christ, in the pre-mortal realm distinguished himself as the most valiant of the Father's "spirit children". He was so perfectly in tune and united with the purposes of God the Father, that for all intents and purposes they are one, and Christ is God the son. As such, he volunteered and was chosen to be the savior of the world. At the direction of God the Father, he created the Earth (again, organized it from existing matter) and all things on it including the physical bodies of Adam and Eve. Hence, Christ is our "Father" or the father of our physical bodies. 3 - Christ himself took on a mortal physical body and was born of Mary. While in this life, he was the perfect, sinless example for us. He also spent his ministry organizing his church, teaching his disciples, and conferring his priesthood on the apostles. But the biggest thing he did was the atonement, wherein he took upon himself the pains, sorrows, and sins of all people upon condition of their repentance and acceptance of his sacrifice. Further, he overcame the bands of death to be resurrected, and thus opened the door for all mankind to be resurrected. Hence, he is our savior, redeemer, and the "father" of our salvation meaning 'our father of the new birth'. So when asked "who is a child of God". It really depends on which context your talking about as to how to answer. Which is pretty much what your position is, so we agree on that point. As for the second point. You said he is "one God in three divine persons". This phrase is from the Athenasian creed, and I have never understood it, nor have I ever met anyone who could explain it to me. Is there one, or are there three? And if there are three how can there only be one? Does God physically divide himself into three parts? And if there are three parts, how can there only been one? Can you explain it? I sincerely would like to know because as it is I just can't understand why so many of my friends believe what I see as a completely non-scriptural description. Generally I just get "well, you have to take it on Faith because God can't be comprehended". But that contradicts John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." We're supposed to know God, not be confused by him. The thing is, that the doctrine of the Trinity is really not that much different than the doctrine of the Godhead. The only real difference is that those who believe in a trinity believe God is a spirit, while we who believe in a Godhead recognize that the Father and son each have flesh and bone bodies, while the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. In either case, we agree that the three are completely unified in thought, purpose, and power and are therefore "one God". Further, in response to your assertion that Joseph Smith couldn't have seen two personages. How do you explain Acts 7:55-56 where Stephen saw God and Jesus Christ as two separate personages? "55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." Why can't Joseph have seen the same kind of vision?

The subject has been covered well, but I have to give props for bringing up the "ox in the mire" phrase. I probably use the ox too often to justify my actions on Sunday, but I love that passage of scripture because of its explanation about the Sabbath being made for man, and not vice versa. Basically, you shouldn't do anything on a Sabbath day that will detract from the spirit being with you. You should take special care in choosing activities that invite the spirit to be with you. But when the Ox is in the mire, and something needs to be done, do it. The spirit is with us when we're doing what we should and need to do.

Articles of Faith 8 "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God". Gen. 6:17 17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. Gen. 7:19 19 And the awaters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Gen. 7: 23. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. Moses 8:30 30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth. There are numerous other scriptures, but this should suffice. The flood was over all the earth. Granted there may have been a few high spots here and there where in nothing lived, and therefore didn't have to be covered (although, I still believe they were all covered completely). But it is sufficient to know that ALL breathing animals were destroyed from off the whole earth. It is not allegorical. If some still think that it can all be attributed to mistranslation or misunderstanding, I suggest you research some conference talks because there have been several in which a general authority as described the whole earth being covered. As to the argument that the ark wasn't big enough for all animals. It's called "parent species". Of course not every single breed of every single animal would fit, however every breed of a species of animals can trace parentage to one particular animal. For example, every member of the pigeon/dove family (and there are hundreds of species) all descended from the Rock Dove, which is the dove that Noah had on the ark. Deer, Elk, Moose, Caribou, Red Stags, etc. are all descended from one variety of deer. Every species of canine (dog, wolf, coyote, etc) are descended from one type of dog. Every species of Feline (lion, tiger, housecat, bobcat, cheetah, ocelot, etc.) And so on. In this way, Noah had a male and female of every parent species of animal. (plus the 7 pairs of edible animals that they survived on). After the flood was over and the animals left the ark, they multiplied. As their posterity spread throughout the earth to different locations and habitats, they all adapted to their different surroundings and developed into new breeds (of the same species). And that is how we have so many varieties today. But this is adaptation, NOT evolution (in the sense the world knows it). As for the worms and insects (ground dwellers), It is possible that they were directed by God to go deeper into the earth, or into a non-permeable soil layer, where the flood waters wouldn't destroy them. And of course the sea creatures didn't need saving. Why do you think the oldest known creatures on Earth (sharks and crocodiles) are sea creatures? They were not reduced to one parent species, like all land-dwelling animals, and so their natural adaptive lives continued on unbroken. The end time prophecies are not allegorical either. The whole earth will be burned with fire to purify it, but the righteous will be saved the same that Noah and his family were saved.