HiJolly Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Incorrect statement since it needs the approval of the First Presidency or the assigned Twelve member to over see what is written.If we turn to the Church's web site at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and go to the Newsroom / commentary area and read the article "Approaching Mormon Doctrine", we will find that Vort is correct. Even though the Institute manuals are written and approved under the oversight of the First Presidency, they do not qualify as "doctrine" of the Church. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 While I went to this link and read what it said...I still feel strongly that Church manuals used for teaching would not have false information provided. That they are overseen by the First Presidency. I still can't comprehend that we would have manuals used throughout the world that would have incorrect teachings in them. My interpretation of the link was that what individual leaders say in meetings can't be taken as doctrine unless quoting scripture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Hemi, you still haven't answered my simple questions above. What is the unique day pointed to be the term "April 6 AD 1", and by what authority do you derive that date?Nor do I agree on your self assumptions or pure speculation.I do not know what "self assumptions" you're talking about. But I see that you still haven't answered my question.Come on, Hemi. Are you going to engage in conversation or not? You have made a statement: "Jesus was born on 6 April 1 BC." Now please explain what that means. If you can't explain its meaning, then how is it a meaningful statement?The signifance factor here, we do remember the Savior and His birth as the prophet already seen.Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Which is the "significance [i assume that's what you meant] factor"? Are you saying that Jesus is "the prophet already seen"? Who would the "prophet not already seen" be? I think maybe you're missing a verb or something.Now, do I listen to Vort? Or do I listen to the prophets? You pretty much know that answer....If that's how you want to break things down, then of course you have your answer. (Unfortunately, I still do not have mine...how hard is it simply to explain to me what the date means that you propose as Jesus' "birthday"?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 (edited) While I went to this link and read what it said...I still feel strongly that Church manuals used for teaching would not have false information provided. That they are overseen by the First Presidency. I still can't comprehend that we would have manuals used throughout the world that would have incorrect teachings in them. I understand. I don't for a minute think that *anyone* contributing to the manuals would ever include anything they didn't think was true. But we live in the world, and Satan is the god of this world. The same place that we learn that truth, we also learn that the instruction of *this* people (in the world) is approved of by Satan, and that it consists of the philosphies of men, mingled with scripture. What has the temple to say about this? What is the alternative? The temple not only shows us what the alternative is, it teaches us (via A&E) how to attain it. "Give strict heed" is wise counsel indeed! All else is declared to be "the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture". To me, anything not directly testified in our souls by the Holy Ghost qualifies. Even talks in Church or Conference. Even the Ensign articles. If the Holy Ghost does not bear witness to me concerning it, I must be cautious. This is a hard teaching, I know. But I truly feel it is what the temple is teaching us. My interpretation of the link was that what individual leaders say in meetings can't be taken as doctrine unless quoting scripture.Pretty much, yes. Scripture including whatever is spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost. And we don't know what that is unless the HG teaches it to us. I think what all this is about, is the transition we must make from faith in institutions and other people, to faith in God directly. The process of becoming a Prophet/Prophetess. HiJolly Edited April 7, 2009 by HiJolly Add final sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Thanks for that. You made me feel better. haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 To me, anything not directly testified in our souls by the Holy Ghost qualifies. Even talks in Church or Conference. Even the Ensign articles. If the Holy Ghost does not bear witness to me concerning it, I must be cautious.I believe I understand what you're getting at, and I completely agree. Words are merely a representation of ideas, and ideas are merely a mental model of external reality. Our ideas don't represent reality perfectly, and our words don't represent our ideas perfectly. So our words are bound to be wrong on many occasions. The Spirit is the singular method through which we may learn everlasting truth.However, regarding your sentences above, I admit that when I don't feel the Holy Ghost when reading scripture or listening to a General Conference address, my default assumption is that I am somehow deficient, rather than that the doctrine is false. I have only rarely been proven wrong using that method. :) But when conversation drifts away from how the kingdom of God operates and what the saving doctrines are, and becomes people repeating a speculation by BH Roberts about what Section 20's wording implies (an implication that those closest to Joseph Smith himself didn't even share), I feel no compunction about disagreeing with such.I think what all this is about, is the transition we must make from faith in institutions and other people, to faith in God directly. The process of becoming a Prophet/Prophetess.That's what it's really about, isn't it? Moses wanted to make a nation of kings and priests, but his people were unable or unwilling to meet that standard. Three thousand years later, the Lord has chosen us to be his people and is again trying to create a nation of kings and priests -- but for that to happen, we need to be prophets and prophetesses, each of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Job 38:7We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.Scripture cannot say "we could not feel joy," and then say, "we felt joy," and be speaking of the same things. Joy and happiness can be synonymns, but from another perspective there is a distinct difference.To me, speaking of the joy we will receive in the Kingdom of God when our bodies and spirits are inseparably connected, is the joy that was spoken of in the discussions. We cannot feel a fullness of joy, or joy, when our bodies and spirits are not joined eternally. In my mind it is the same.Now, there are technical details you can get into, but it's easier just to teach D&C 93 when you teach the discussion.You don't have to agree with me. I'm just saying there is a way it can be in harmony and teach the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicko Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 its his birthday today?????????? I THOUGH IT WAS DECEMBER 25?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 its his birthday today??????????I THOUGH IT WAS DECEMBER 25??Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe it was on April 6. Doctrine and Covenants 20 HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe it was on April 6. Doctrine and Covenants 20Not this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Not this one. Fine. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicko Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 guys, does it exactly say when jesus was born in the bible?? i read of how he was born and everything else but did it give the date? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicko Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 · Hidden Hidden guys, does it exactly say when jesus was born in the bible?? i read of how he was born and everything else but did it give the date? Link to comment
HiJolly Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 guys, does it exactly say when jesus was born in the bible?? i read of how he was born and everything else but did it give the date?Not in the Bible, no. I linked to a scripture in the Doctrine & Covenants that did give the date, though. In the bible it talks about the shepherds 'watching their flocks by night' in the fields. They wouldn't do that in December, trust me. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Nope it doesn't. It does however say something in the Doctrine and Covenants which some members of the Church (but not Vort :)) take to mean he was born on April 6th. If you read the thread you'll get the details on why that is, and why December 25th isn't considered credible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicko Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicko Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 You guys are so smart!!! I like this site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 guys, does it exactly say when jesus was born in the bible?? i read of how he was born and everything else but did it give the date?The calendar system wasn't even the same, so if the date was given, it would have to be figured into modern calendars, which could create a variation of a day or two. Circumstances would indicate that it was in the spring, however, and not the dead of winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 If there was a party at the Church, I'm sorry I missed the cake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.