ultra-conservative clothing

[HEthePrimate]

Vort, apparently you didn't read the post I made shortly thereafter, in which I already made a clarification. I'm not going to bother clarifying again. Besides, we are under no obligation to read Mormon Doctrine. It's not to everybody's taste, and if they don't like it, they shouldn't read it.

[Vort]

Vort, apparently you didn't read the post I made shortly thereafter, in which I already made a clarification. I'm not going to bother clarifying again. Besides, we are under no obligation to read Mormon Doctrine. It's not to everybody's taste, and if they don't like it, they shouldn't read it.

Your "clarification" post came conveniently after my post that you claim "misinterpreted" you. Funny, that.

Interestingly, you failed to respond to what I wrote, where I pointed out what you wrote. You ought perhaps to clarify your change of heart, rather than pretend it was all due to my misunderstanding you.

Your final statement defies logic. Not liking a book does not provide a moral imperative to avoid reading it.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Vort

[Timpman]

Okaaay... way to misinterpret! I merely assert that prophets and apostles are merely human, like the rest of us, and we are not obliged to agree with everything they say. They themselves would say the same thing.

Of course it behooves us to pay attention to what they say, and to pray and ask God if it's right.

When an OFFICIAL declaration is made, we pretty much have to accept it in order to sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It is not a matter of asking God IF it is right, it is a matter of asking for a conviction that is IS right.

[HEthePrimate]

When an OFFICIAL declaration is made, we pretty much have to accept it in order to sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It is not a matter of asking God IF it is right, it is a matter of asking for a conviction that is IS right.

Baloney. We don't have to accept anything, unless you signed up for Satan's plan. The prophets themselves say we should pray to find out if what they're saying is true. Why don't you believe the prophets?

[HEthePrimate]

Your "clarification" post came conveniently after my post that you claim "misinterpreted" you. Funny, that.

Interestingly, you failed to respond to what I wrote, where I pointed out what you wrote. You ought perhaps to clarify your change of heart, rather than pretend it was all due to my misunderstanding you.

Your final statement defies logic. Not liking a book does not provide a moral imperative to avoid reading it.

I suspect we were posting about the same time, and missed each other's posts.

I said nothing about a "moral imperative," silly! If you don't like Harlequin romances, then you shouldn't read them because it'll be a waste of time for you and perhaps a source of frustration. If you don't like Mormon Doctrine, then don't read it.

Mormon Doctrine is not scripture. Deal with it.

[annewandering]

Oh stop the bickering! You both know what each other meant! sheesh. Testosterone is a pain in the posterior sometimes.

[HEthePrimate]

Testosterone is a pain in the posterior sometimes.

Posterior? Um, I think you meant the other side...

[annewandering]

Posterior? Um, I think you meant the other side...

Not hardly.

[HEthePrimate]

All kidding aside, annewandering, you're right that sometimes we fall into arguing for the sake of arguing. (It's not just guys that do it, though.)

[annewandering]

lol maybe not. But if its me involved just remember I have 5 brothers and no sisters. :) I learned bad habits!!

[bytor2112]

I should clarify. I am not opposed to reading Mormon Doctrine, really, just as long as we remember that it's not scripture, just the opinion of a man. McConkie's thoughts can be helpful at times, but it's also okay to disagree with them.

I am not opposed to reading conference talks...really, as long as we remember it's not scripture, just the opinions of men. On a side note, we read Mormon Doctrine quite often in Sunday School, Institute and Seminary...oh and it is oft quoted in Conference talks by other "men"

Edited May 1, 2012 by bytor2112

[Vort]

Oh stop the bickering! You both know what each other meant! sheesh. Testosterone is a pain in the posterior sometimes.

Yes. I know exactly what he meant. I explained it clearly, using his own words. There was no misquotation on my part.

Testosterone has nothing to do with it, however much you might like to reduce things to such embarrassingly anti-male terms.

[annewandering]

Is testosterone anti male? For some reason that just seems odd or at least funny. Ok I was kidding.

[Vort]

Is testosterone anti male? For some reason that just seems odd or at least funny. Ok I was kidding.

Seriously, anne? It's like saying, "Is that you talking, sweetie, or is it just Aunt Flow having her say?"

What? Is menstruation anti-female?

[annewandering]

Hmm interesting point. :)

[DevtheWind]

This may seem off-topic Vort but ever since you opened that thread on whether your profile pic is a man or woman I can't help myself stare at it whenever I pass it... I miss your clown pic xD

[FunkyTown]

At risk of being pulled in to something(Because I am such a shrinking violet usually with my opinions) Vort: My problem with Mormon Doctrine is that many of the people who read it get the feeling that it's Mormon Doctrine.

Mormon Doctrine is fine. Just don't confuse the forceful words in things that aren't doctrine and make it doctrine. Therein lies a lot of anti-LDS sentiment.

Don't get me wrong - I love the King Follett discourses. I also love the miracle of Forgiveness. However, I am uneasy with Mormon Doctrine as anything other than a historical document for the same reasons that Marion G. Romney had issues with it.

I am not saying it's terrible, nor was Marion G. Romney. I'm merely saying that it can point people in the wrong direction.

[Dravin]

I suspect if the book had been entitled, "Bruce R. McConkie's ponderings and reflections." it'd be much less of the boat rocker it seems to be.

[annewandering]

I suspect if the book had been entitled, "Bruce R. McConkie's ponderings and reflections." it'd be much less of the boat rocker it seems to be.

Maybe it ought to be renamed. :) Lots less confusion then.

[Dravin]

Maybe it ought to be renamed. :) Lots less confusion then.

Renaming it would be moot as the book is out of print as of 2010.

[Timpman]

Baloney. We don't have to accept anything, unless you signed up for Satan's plan. The prophets themselves say we should pray to find out if what they're saying is true. Why don't you believe the prophets?

I said one has to accept it in order to sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. How could someone sustain the First Presidency and reject their proclamations at the same time? You don't get to reject doctrines or purposely and consistently disobey church rules AND continue in the faith. One can certainly use their agency to kick himself out of the Church.

Do you have a reference for your statement "The prophets themselves say we should pray to find out if what they're saying is true"? I maintain that we need a conviction that what they say IS true.

[Timpman]

I understand that we are certainly encouraged to pray for a testimony and for direction, but you seem to take it to another level. What I mean is that you seem to think we should be suspicious of what the Brethren say, as if they are politicians. That we should have no faith in their words until the Spirit sends a witness. I think that's the wrong approach.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Timpman

[Hala401]

According to several women that I have talked to, the Church has significantly changed its approach to several areas, and I for one, being from Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Muslim, Amish conditioning, think that growth and the ability to prayerfully consider change to be a good thing.

The most obvious example is the abandonment of Polygamy in the late 40's. One woman, about 20 years my senior said that it used to be much different for women when she was young. "You pretty much had to obey the men".

I pretty much greatly admire President Hinckley a lot. It was his message to the general conference in 2004 that greatly turned me around. Before that, I thought that Mormon women were among the most abused on earth. Now with my new perspective, it seems as if we are pretty much princesses.

So, I think it is great that our church can grow, be guided by the prophet, and mature along the way.

[Vort]

The most obvious example is the abandonment of Polygamy in the late 40's.

Polygamy officially stopped being sanctioned in 1890, and in 1906 all polygamous sealings between living people were forbidden. By the mid-1900s, there were essentially no polygamous LDS couples left alive.

In 1943, Elder Lyman of the Quorum of Twelve was excommunicated for polygamy. He was the last apostle to attempt to live polygamy, and not coincidentally, the last apostle to have been excommunicated. Perhaps it is from Elder Lyman's story that you got the idea that polygamy ceased in the 1940s, but it actually stopped half a century earlier.

[Dravin]

The most obvious example is the abandonment of Polygamy in the late 40's.

Official Declaration 1 (Official Declaration 1  ) was issued in 1890, though the practice kinda hung around for a little while after that but an additional declaration, "The Second Manifesto", was issued in 1904 that reiterated it was to be discontinued. Both dates are well before the late 1940s.