RMGuy

I found it to be VERY heavy on the stereotypes as well. However, I also think it that there is some brilliant humor in it, and if we can't laugh at ourselves then we need to loosen up a bit.

I'm thinking about giving up fasting for lent...

I love how everyone talks about people being offended as the reason people leave. Perhaps if those same people stopped being offensive then no one would be offended :) In reality John Dehlin did an interesting study on why people leave. While I don't agree with him on a lot, I think this was pretty well done. If someone was interested in better understanding this they could Google John Dehlin Why People Leave. Here's a hint...it's not because they were offended.

I think that is probably one of the more likely scenarios JAG...fire or decompression. RM

I too am amazed that we have not yet found something, but that is only because in my realm of experience we are usually inundated with information about an airline disaster almost as soon as it occurs. Being from Michigan I am reminded that in the 1950 a DC-4 was lost over Lake Michigan. Lake Michigan is of course much smaller than the search areas we are dealing with in this situation and much shallower in terms of depth. Yet more than 60 years after its disappearance, and with the most modern of sensors that look for it, we have still found no trace of that plane. So my heart goes out to all that have been impacted by this event, yet after some more thought I'm am more surprised that these kinds of events don't happen more frequently. RM

Loudmouth, I think you state accurately and well. Oil_robbs comment does come across as more than a little flip. Yet, if we want to understand how others struggle when they are confronted with this knowledge I think Oil-robb provides some valuable insight. In other words, I understand the sentiment. If this was an experience that I had undergone (as Joseph describes) I think it would be indelibly etched upon my mind. While I don't think the story would have been told word for word each time, I do think that the central precepts of that story would have remained remarkably consistent. In the multiple versions of the first vision they simply are not. Sure we can look at them through the lens of the believer and rationalize the discrepancies away, but for a non-believer, investigator, or someone that has never faced this issue previously they are glaringly obvious. Moreover, while I agree with you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the modus tollens of classical logic, it is incumbent upon the individual that makes the claim to provide the proof or evidence. If for example I make the claim that providing me with $1000 will make you grow two inches taller, then it is reasonable for you to ask me to provide some documented proof of this claim, not for me to tell you that it is up to you to prove it wrong. Further, if you spend the $1000 and the promised inches do to materialize then you likely have a good case for fraud. So while I understand what you are saying, and agree wholeheartedly that Oil_robb comes across as flip and snide, it doesn't mean that he doesn't have a valid point or that we can't learn something from him with regards to why this is an issue for so many. with respect RM

Thank you MOE. Do you think that this is a common or accepted understanding? To build on a couple of items that were mentioned above: If we look at doctrine as foundational, bedrock principles, and other items as things like teachings, practices, policies, etc. and if we pick a specific item be it WoW, Tithing, Masturbation etc. and the individual prays about it and truly believes that they have gained personal revelation that this policy, practice either doesn't apply to them or applies in a different way that that commonly accepted how do you think that would play out. I mean I don't see them getting a temple recommend for example. In other words are they not perceived to then be wrong? There is an instance on my mission that is one of those life altering events, though I didn't recognize it at the time. I was a District Leader and training. My "greenie" asked a question as we walked along one day. He asked, "What would you do if Christ told you to do something contrary to the council of the prophet." My response was that this would never happen because we have been told that the prophet would never lead us astray. (In my pride, and to my everlasting shame, I was sure I was right, after all I was the senior companion). Of course the correct answer should have been I would do as Christ instructed. We even have scriptural examples. Nephi murders Laban even though I am sure his prophet father taught him that "Thou shall not kill." I guess this is just something I am really, really wrestling with. How do you handle a situation when you find yourself in opposition to something you have been taught yet have either not received confirmation that the leader is correct or worse have received confirmation that they are in fact wrong? If you truly have a desire to do that which is good, right, and true how do you handle this? I would have hated to be one of the people at Mountain Meadows that went along because my leaders told me it was the right thing to do. I feel like I am caught up in some cosmic Milgram experiment. -RM

I agree with you, but what do you do when you don't get that confirmation and in fact are led in the opposite direction. There are many in the church that then default to the belief that it is then the individual that is wrong and they need to get themselves in harmony with God's prophet. Rarely, if ever have I heard a member or leader indicate that perhaps the leadership can or could be wrong. --RM

That is helpful estradling. Thank you. Some other recent insight that I received on the matter was that doctrine differs from practice. Like JAG said as well, it is influenced by what we mean as doctrine. I think that for me Doctrine should be the bedrock principles of the gospel. I think what I am wrestling with is the concept that truth shouldn't change. Either something is true or it is not, particularly when it comes to the gospel. Hence, what I think I am looking for is some guidance as to where you can find that core bedrock doctrine. I hear a lot about following the words of the prophet, but then we know that not everything that a prophet says (even over the pulpit in general conference) is doctrinally correct. I like what you had to say here a lot. I could probably go a bit more into depth on how that impacts us with regards to commandments as well, but I think I need to weigh that out a bit more first. -RM

I have a question that I would be grateful for any insight on. I am curious as to what constitutes doctrine in the church. I am particularly looking for any direction on this topic that conclusively points to what is doctrine and what is not. While opinions are welcome, I don't know that they are particularly helpful. Allow me to explain: I have heard the opinion that if it is scriptural then it is doctrinal, yet we can all point to aspects of scripture that are clearly not doctrinal. Nor can we pass off all incorrect scriptural doctrine as merely mistranslation. For example we don't follow Doctrine and Covenants 89 as written. I have also heard the opinion that what is spoken by a prophet is doctrinal, yet I think it is easy to find many instances in which a prophet is voicing his opinion as opposed to a prophetic utterance. I have heard the thought that doctrine is what is spoken by the general authorities over the pulpit in general conference. Yet that would mean accepting things like blood atonement, the Adam-god theory, and many statements on polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, etc. as doctrinal. So that clearly can't be a defining characteristic either. Is it perhaps that which is contained in the handbook? I have heard some members and leaders offer this opinion. Yet, I have copies of several older handbooks and clearly the council contained therein has changed over time on several important subjects. So I feel as though I am forced to disregard this as the ultimate source of doctrine. Unless we are willing to accept or concede that doctrine changes over time (and I don't find many supporters of that concept) then I am left with the question of what is doctrine? I hear the statement that this is doctrine tossed around a lot. Most recently it was in the letter to the Ordain Women movement. In that instance we were told "Ordination of women to the priesthood is a matter of doctrine that is contrary to the Lord’s revealed organization for His church." But in a signed first presidency letter of 1947 we can read this statement, "From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." Yet the current essay on LDS.org disavows this very statement. So if we can't count as doctrine any of the following: The scriptures The words of a Prophet The words of a Prophet in General Conference The content of the handbook Signed first presidency statements Then seriously, what is doctrinal? Or are we forced to admit that doctrine changes. Most Sincerely, RM

Boundaries are very important. Set ones that you are comfortable with and then stick to them. It does not matter what others think your personal boundaries are or should be. If you are not comfortable with something draw the line. I have personally found that very helpful. While the individuals at church are generally well meaning, it does not mean that they need to know or even should know whatever they want to about your life. That is for you and your family to decide.

Great question JAG. I can think of lots of possible reasons, all of which are assumptions. :) -RM

Yes, I think we can safely say that there is a different historical understanding of tithing in the church than that which most members currently practice or express. “If it requires all man can earn to support himself and his family, he is not tithed at all. The celestial law does not take the mother's and children's bread, neither ought else which they really need for their comfort. The poor that have not of this world's good to spare, but serve and honor God according to the best of their abilities in every other way, shall have a celestial crown in the Eternal Kingdom of our Father." (The Millenial Star, 1847. Orson Hyde, editor) We also know that historically President Snow reemphasized the payment of tithing. In fact, it is in one of our recent manuals that we read, “I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child ... shall pay one tenth of their income as a tithing.” - Lorenzo Snow manual pg 160. What did the church decide to leave out through the use of an ellipsis? Here is the relevant quote from the conference report of 1899. “I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child who has means (emphasis added) shall pay one tenth of their income as a tithing.” I know individuals that pay on gross, some that pay on net, and others that pay on some some interpretation of increase, and I know individuals in each group that have current and valid temple recommends. In the end, I think it matters not what we think, or even what our bishops think, but rather what the Lord thinks of what we do. In fact, if I am judging someones contributions because they are in somewhat less or different than the way I choose to contribute I am probably less in favor in the Lord's eyes than they are.

Luke 18:22-23. Jesus seems to disagree with you.

Excellent point. Just think what they would have said about her if she owned a cattle ranch or too, a hunting resort, a couple of universities, a high end mall, a retail property in a major east coast city, and was driven around in an armored Audi A8. :)

I think it is more a question of "Is this how you really believe Jesus would spend the money?" I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with that statement, but I do understand how individuals can ask that question after reading the scriptures. I also understand how certain members of this forum can answer it by saying that as long as you support the leaders of the church that they are doing as the Lord would have them do, and I understand that other members of the forum and church disagree. -RM

Source please?

Anatess, that is pretty much the theory that I have arrived at as well. Is it correct? I don't know. It works for me, but I also understand why it may not work for others. -RM

1. What religion do you subscribe to? (Since not all of us are LDS.) I'm Nom-Mormon 2. Were you born into, or converted to your religion? Good question. I'll go with born into for $200 Alex. 3. Are you a devout, casual, or inactive member of your religion? Even tougher. TBM's would probably call me casual (because I don't necessarily tow the party line), yet I have probably put more time and effort into studying since becoming NOMish that at other times. 4. What is one core principle in your religion that you feel strongly about? Families are important. 5. What is one misconception that outsiders have about your religion? Where to begin 6. Name one religion that fascinates you. Unitarianism

Does anyone have any prime source material from the time where Joseph taught anything BUT a Triune God before 1836-37? I ask because Estradling brings up a good point. How do we know what others think if they don't tell us. I was posed the above question or something very similar to it once. The point being that IF Joseph knew that the Godhead was 3 separate personages then why didn't he tell that story until 16-17 years later? The early versions of the first vision seem to better align with a Triune God theory. The latter, with separate Godhead members. The early editions of the Book of Mormon (particularly 1 Ne: 11) seem to support that stance. In fact, we still have some vestiges of the Triune theory today. 1Ne 11 was later changed, but not until after 1836-37. I think that is some of what throws individuals, or at least the individual that I talked with. I have heard several good theories as to why this is the case, have even entertained a few thoughts on it myself. As to concrete answers, I have none.

I'm ENTJ. I've heard ENTJ's described as "It's not so much my way or the highway as it is my highway!"

Our ward always seems to have openings in the every member a janitor program. Heck we get called at least twice a month on this...I would be happy to share that responsibility with any women that would like it...or any men too for that matter :)

I am grateful for Skippy's comments. I will say that when I was a youth in the church I heard it taught that the mark of Cain was a curse and that that curse was a skin of blackness. I will add that I disagree with that teaching. When you read the scriptures in Moses that talk about a Mark you will not it cross references to the BOM and references to the Lamanites. Read 2Ne 5:21 and I think you can see what that idea came from in the church. Even though we disavow it now.

Could I vote for a liberal? Of course. I'm pretty sure Jesus was one.

The Book of Lehi.