cwald

Wow, just when I thought it couldn't get any worse here. You folks are so rude to each other. I think you make a lot of sense MM. And I don't think we need to wait around expecting the gods to come down and change things that aren't working so well. Or for the prophet to come out with some grand revelation. We're in the trenches and know what works and what doesn't. He (the gods) gave us a brain and reason and problem solving ability for a reason. Having these kind of discussions, online and with church members and local leaders is how policy and procedures get made and revised to begin with. I don't think the gods really cares all that much for all these details. He leaves it up to us to figure it out the best we can. We see this because we see how the church is continually evolving and changing. I also don't think it is wise to just sit back and say, "oh, the prophet will let us know what we need to know..." Anyway, I hear ya Mormonmusic. And I don't think an illogical fallacy like "we are not in a position to instruct God on how best to organize the leadership of his kingdom" should stop you from throwing these ideas out there. Skeptiod did a great podcast on fallacy - and this one was right at the top..."appeal to a higher authority to stop the discussion."

I have read the BOM cover to cover with my kids twice. I guess perhaps I will be the exception here and say I really enjoy the Isiah chapters. I really enjoy the NT. Read it through several times personally. Right now, our family gave up on the BOM reading and decided to work through the NT. I think the key to helping kids read the NT is to use a different version than KJ. We've found that the NIV is much easier for kids and teenagers to understand and follow. That's just my opinion.

Or perhaps he just doesn't want to agree with your INTERPRETATION of what the scriptures say?

It doesn't say anything like that. It says that barley is good for making mild drinks. At the time of the revelation most people would understand that to mean that beer was okay. And like you stated, many many apostles argue that beer was okay all way up through the temperance movement and until prohibition, when Pres. Grant decided it wasn't, and enforced it as a temple recommend requirement.

All this debate seems quite silly to me to be honest. Since it's the official church policy that for something to become doctrine it has to be "presented to and accepted by the body of the Church." than it is should be quite clear what is and what isn't "church doctrine." This is probably why they had to change BKP talk from GC when he claimed that the proclamation to the family was "a revelation." They changed that reference in the written record to say something like " counsel" because in order for it to be considered doctrine and revelation, it would have to be approved by the church. So obviously, since they changed that part, even our own leaders do not believe that The Proclamation is doctrine. So, I guess it just seems silly to me to argue for example that the temple ceremony is doctrine. As far as I know it has never been presented to the church?

Well, I guess if you go by the scriptures, than our Word of Wisdom also permits beer drinking as well. D&C 89:17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for th horse, and rye for the fowls and swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain."

Okay Pam, that is fair. I'll get back to the topic at hand.

Well, that is not entirely true, since you were the first person who responded to my intro thread, and were immediately suspicious about my presence here since I am a NOM. But yeah, you are right, you have been cordial to me for the most part. I mistaken you for Eowen who did just wanted to argue and parse "wordage." It was actually the moderator Davin, and about six other regulars who have pretty who been pretty nasty - so, yes, I apologize. I have absolutely no idea why I can't say that it's my opinion , which I stated several times in this thread, that "I don't think this is kind of direction that the mormon people or leaders want the membership to go." Can't I have an opinion about the mormon people? It was just my opinion. Would you feel better if I said, "it's my opinion that the majority of the mormon people don't....?"

yes, but wouldn't the followers of Warren Jeffs say the same thing? I mean, they have also gotten a spiritual testimony that Jeffs is the true prophet. Perhaps that is why we still need to use reason, logic, the scriptures and the spirit to determine the truth about every pronouncement that our "prophet", whichever religion one belongs too, is actually speaking for god? That is why I would argue the 14 Fs are unnecessary and bad doctrine. It doesn't fit in with what I know about the Mormon philosophy of finding truth.

Okay Pam, do you think the Mormon church truly believes, teaches and wants it's members to adopt the mindset espoused in the 14 Fs? Perhaps they do, that SLC DOES want it's members to buy into the concepts? Perhaps, but I sure hope not. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt that these two GA's were just speaking as men and weren't expressing the opinion of the Monson and the other Apostles on this issue.

I don't want to be rude either, but I don't know what you are talking about. I made it very clear I was just expressing my opinion, and how I perceive this issue. Perhaps you should cut me some slack - you've been on my case since I signed up here. What's the problem?

Yeah, but isn't this the same kind of logic or argument that followers of Warren Jeffs might make? I guess, if one believes that the church encourages us to study and understand the gospel and seek truth from all sources, like you mention, than what is the point of the 14 Fs at all? Why would anyone even talk like this? It's unnecessary. I have no problem believing a prophet speaks to god, but, that concept is used by so so many cults and religions and other groups, that to teach the concepts and principles of the 14 F's to mormon children, is, well, scary to me. Why do it? Why not just teach people to use the scriptures, their conscience, and the spirit to determine if their leader is speaking for god, rather than saying stuff like, the prophet will never lead us astray? I mean, I'm quite positive that the followers of Warren Jeffs have been taught from an early age and continue to believe that the "prophet," Warren Jeffs in this case, will never lead them astray either. Yet, if they would use logic and the spirit and reasoning, and the concept that by their fruits you shall know them, I think they would be a lot better off. I think that could be applied to many groups and religions and cults. And I think that any logic and reasonable LDS person who heard these concepts applied to any other religion or organization, outside of the mormon church, would reject them immediately and utterly. I say this, because we teach it all the time --- use the spirit to determine if what we teach is true. We say this to people of other religions all the time who believe they are following the true "prophet of god." So we tell our people to just believe what our leaders say, yet we tell other folks to use the spirit to decide if they should believe what their leaders say. That doesn't work. It doesn't make sense? IMO. I'm not criticizing the mormon prophets. If one wants to follow them and listen to their counsel, than fine. I do to some extent. I'm criticizing the 14 F's concepts, which, are taught by many many religions and I think are perhaps the most cult-like and dangerous teachings that any person can fall victim too. Once one buys into them, they are caught into a mind trap where there is no escape. I was very sad to see this kind of teaching resurface after 30 years. I do not believe Bro. Costa did the members of the church any favor by resurrecting this kind of dogma and thought process. And I don't think this is the kind of direction that the Mormon people or it's leaders want the membership to go. That is just my opinion.

If one was to apply the principles of 14 F's to any other religion or civic or political organization or any other kind of group, most logical and reasonable people would reject them immediately and utterly. I respect that LDS people believe they have a prophet that speaks to god and leads the church. I have no problem with people trusting their church leader. What I have a problem with is teaching this kind of "logic" and "doctrine" and the potential damage that this belief can do in the hands of the wrong organization and leader. The issue I have, is teaching these kind of principles and concepts to find truth and a spiritual pathway, is VERY dangerous, and it absolutely handcuffs any kind of logic and reason and moral authority. I mean, people like Jim Jones and David Koresh and Islamic extremest and the the leaders of the FLDS polygamist groups etc etc use these exact same principles that are espoused in the 14 F's to disarm their followers. They are nothing more than a mind trap that people cannot escape, and once taken hold, there is no morality or choice except for what the leader put's forth. That is the issue. Yes, Mormons believe they are following gods prophet. Yeah, but so are millions and billions of other people using the same concept believing THEY are following god's prophet. That is a dangerous faith to be teaching young folks. I really believe the LDS church DOES NOT espouse these principles. Yes, I know we heard them in conference, but I don't think our church really wants it's membership to think like this. I have no problem with the concept of listening to the counsel of the prophet. But, god gave us a brain, a conscience, reason and logic, and most importantly - the spirit. We need to use them, and not just rely on the "prophet" of any organization, or in our case in the LDS church, the 14 F's, to decide what is moral and which pathway we will follow. If the prophet's words are from god - we can know it by the spirit. If the prophet's words are not from god - we can know it by the spirit, and by their fruits you shall know them.

PC, I don't want to debate doctrine either, but just want to say that I understand your questioning of the whole coffee and tea commandment. The Word of Wisdom would be a close second for me on this list, after the 14 Fs.

FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHET BY ELDER Ezra Taft Benson February 26, 1980 Summary: First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything. Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works. Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray. Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. Sixth: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture. Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know. Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning. Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters. Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich. Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly. Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church. Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

Hey Pete, I like the thought, and I kinda agree. I might word it slightly different though. I think the ultimate purpose of the gods' plan is for one to find PEACE. Peace. Joy. Yeah, I get what you are saying.

I have often wondered if perhaps when Stanford came out in the 70's and refused to play basketball game against BYU because of their policy concerning blacks and the priesthood, that kind of shook up the leadership of the church and really made them do some soul searching and praying about the issue? I don't know why the church made the change to the policy, but, whether it was from political pressure and/or just god knowing things had to change for the church to continue to operate and function, much like the manifesto, I'm just really glad the policy was changed.

Least appreciated LDS doctrine: The 14 Fundamentals of the Prophets Favorite traditional Christian doctrine: That all people, even the worst of us sinners can be saved through grace and the atonement.

Really? -sigh- Just let it go.

No. Take my sincere compliment of you and the LDS people, or not. It's up to you. I'm not parsing lingo and word usage in this introduction thread.

Yeah, me too. If you figure it out let me know. Okay, I will be very diplomatic and just say that I have respect for JP, and I don't believe he deserves the lynching that he his getting. That is just my opinion.

I don't know what you want me to say or explain? Why is the word "true" an issue? The mormon church is good. The mormon people are good. I'm trying to give a sincere compliment to the LDS people who post at LDS.net. What do you want me to say?

I grew up in Weston Idaho. I agree with you --- and I do not let others decide how I live my life and the gospel. I am like you I suppose --- just trying to figure out this whole mormon tribe thing, my culture, and where I might fit in the scheme of things.

Okay, thank you for your honesty.

Please just let me say that the "mormon people are true" and that "I am true" in my introduction without mincing words and debate, and having to parse every definition and statement that I make? To say that the mormon people are true, is one of the nicest things I could think of to say about a group of people.