In Theory, In Principle, In Doctrine, In The Law of the Gospel


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, it is semantic, which often serves a valid purpose or context. I explained why I think the essay’s use of “theories” is sufficient and accurate. It conveys the relative importance and relevance of what was taught in the past relative to the fundamental doctrine of Christ and in relation to all else that is taught today. The exact revelatory basis for them, or whether there was one, is simply not known so “theories” really is the best term to use.

3 Nephi 12:1 is designed to inspire and protect the faith of those who tend to chafe because they wonder whether our correlated teachings are in harmony with Christ’s doctrines, sophisticated or nuanced enough for the truly elect, broad enough for society’s acceptance, etc. The message of these chapters is that it is better to heed the message (and doctrines, covenants and ordinances) of the Lord’s united servants than to provoke contention and disputation in reaction to second-guessing them over less important doctrines.

Its actually in defense against the critics- they are the ones bringing it up. Im just trying to find a way to defend it. If we can admit what is and what isnt doctrine vs. theory we may quell the attack before it begins. One of the problems is that our critics will bring up a relative source stating something was in fact a "doctrine" as pronounced by church leaders in the past and yet have church published essays and definitions that deny it ever was. It then makes us out to be liars or deceptive. And, when the less knowledgable member is attacked by the critic they dont know how to react, what to say, and sometimes feel deceived by the church and even question the church. All we really have to do is face the truth and use words and terms correctly and not try to change things later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

You mentioned earlier that you thought that the connection between Cain's mark and black skin was just a speculation. I don't disagree with that. If you're curious, there's one or two passages in Moses that could be used to bolster that position.

You've done something interesting here, and I wonder if you realize it. I asked you about Cain's curse, and while you quoted verses that delineate it, you decided to call attention to the mark. The mark is not the curse. The two, while being related, are not the same.

Which brings me back to my call for references: How does this passage show that Cain's descendants (or even Cain himself) were cursed pertaining to Priesthood? Did he till the soil by Priesthood authority? Or is this a veiled reference to his inability to attend quorum meetings?

Canaan and his descendants were cursed as to the priesthood however I think many feel this is the curse of Cain through Egyptus however I can’t find any clear link. There seems to be two curses. Whether Cain was cursed as to the priesthood I don’t know but the descendants of Canaan where cursed as outlined in the passages I posted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I misspoke earlier when I said that Cain was cursed as to the priesthood was scriptural.  I should’ve said the curse of Ham  or Canaan was as to the Priesthood and was scriptural. There seems to be no direct proven connection between the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham or Canaan. 

There is also no proven connection between the curse of Cain and black skin.

As written in the essay the idea that the curse of Cain was black skin was probably mostly an excuse to justify slavery.

 Here is a link to Wikipedia article on the subject which is quite interesting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

Considering how flimsy the evidence is that black skin is the mark of Cain I can understand why the church would want to disavow such theories. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its actually in defense against the critics- they are the ones bringing it up. Im just trying to find a way to defend it. If we can admit what is and what isnt doctrine vs. theory we may quell the attack before it begins. One of the problems is that our critics will bring up a relative source stating something was in fact a "doctrine" as pronounced by church leaders in the past and yet have church published essays and definitions that deny it ever was. It then makes us out to be liars or deceptive. And, when the less knowledgable member is attacked by the critic they dont know how to react, what to say, and sometimes feel deceived by the church and even question the church. All we really have to do is face the truth and use words and terms correctly and not try to change things later.

Not everyone uses words and terms in a standard fashion, especially in a global Church, and so the words used in correlated material are not exactly our Achilles heels. No matter what the Church says, critics will make her an offender for a word, and the vulnerable member will require ministering (we have the poor always with us). The critic is wasting his time noodling over nothing, and the vulnerable member is making more important choices over how to answer what proves to be difficult questions and challenges for him. Likewise, the strong and secure member will be given him what to say to critics, or what to do for that matter, when they come up against them. Our leaders have given counsel about engaging critics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found a reference for the seed of Cain having black skin it’s Moses 7:22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were ablack, and had not place among them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, this conversation aint going anywhere is it?

Which of your conversations on this forum have every gone anywhere?

Let's pretend, for a second, that I shared every last detail of what I was talking about. Do you, or anyone else, believe it would have the least effect on you and your view whatsoever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Which of your conversations on this forum have every gone anywhere?

Let's pretend, for a second, that I shared every last detail of what I was talking about. Do you, or anyone else, believe it would have the least effect on you and your view whatsoever?

Yeah, it's definitely not going anywhere. Somehow you are one of the ones as to the reasons why it goes nowhere. Strange...

The problem with making a claim such as yours is because it's basically- well, you are wrong but I'm can't tell you why but you are definitely wrong and you don't really understand things but I can't tell you why.

Understand why it's not going anywhere?

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I think that he Egyptus is believed to be a descendent of Cain thus preserving the curse in the land. However there is also the curse of Canaan which may be an entirely separate curse.

Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Thanks for humoring me. Elder Alvin Dyer did the best job of presenting a unified theory for these different passages, including many if not all of the other reasons given at the time for the priesthood ban. But, as Elder McConkie said, everyone speaking before the revelation was walking in limited light. Ham may have been married to a descendant of Cain, and Cain's mark may have been black skin, but these ideas came primarily from Fundamentalists in the 19th and 20th centuries. These are not based on LDS scripture. In fact, as I'm sure you're aware , early rationales for the ban revolved around the curse of Cain and the Book of Abraham wasn't used for a proof text until much later (and I can't tell you when the Book of Moses was brought into it, but I suspect it was even later).

All that to say, the scriptural proof texts for the curse of Cain, Cain's mark, and Egypt's denial of legitimate priesthood used to be considered airtight. But then came a new revelation and the previous assumptions can now be revisited and seen for the leaps they were. That doesn't mean that the assumptions are false (and I still hear them bandied about on occasion), just that we should recognize that they aren't as explicit in our scriptures (even LDS scriptures) as was once thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

 I should’ve said the curse of Ham  or Canaan was as to the Priesthood and was scriptural.

There's a strong argument in favor of this based on Abraham 1, but what we often refer to as Ham's curse is actually pronounced upon Canaan. That curse says nothing about priesthood, although Pharaoh's curse does. But he's cursed because of his matriarchal lineage. He's not even descended from Canaan, he's descended from a daughter. And those verses repeat over and over again that the priesthood order Pharaoh claims is a patriarchal order from Adam through Ham - but that invariably goes through a non-patriarchal succession. So Pharaoh's priesthood curse is scriptural, but I would argue that Ham's and Canaan's are not.

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I found a reference for the seed of Cain having black skin it’s Moses 7:22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were ablack, and had not place among them.

I think this is a good source to reference to show that Cainites had black skin. Hugh Nibley has argued that we misread it when we attribute the blackness to skin. He argues that anciently "white" as used in the Book of Mormon refers to city-dwelling civilized folk and "black" as used in the Book of Mormon and Moses refers to backwoods nomadic hicks (kind of like "rednecks" that don't actually have red necks). I don't know that I fully buy that, but I do find it compelling for the Moses scripture since it notably lacks the word "skin" in it anywhere (as opposed to the Book of Mormon). In that light, there is no place for the seed of Cain among the seed of Adam because he and his descendants are cursed to be vagabonds. This falls apart once you see that Cain's Enoch built a city, but the spirit of separation and classism is still there. Again, I'm not sure that Nibley has it right, but there is a strong argument for an alternate reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

There's a strong argument in favor of this based on Abraham 1, but what we often refer to as Ham's curse is actually pronounced upon Canaan. That curse says nothing about priesthood, although Pharaoh's curse does. But he's cursed because of his matriarchal lineage. He's not even descended from Canaan, he's descended from a daughter. And those verses repeat over and over again that the priesthood order Pharaoh claims is a patriarchal order from Adam through Ham - but that invariably goes through a non-patriarchal succession. So Pharaoh's priesthood curse is scriptural, but I would argue that Ham's and Canaan's are not.

I think this is a good source to reference to show that Cainites had black skin. Hugh Nibley has argued that we misread it when we attribute the blackness to skin. He argues that anciently "white" as used in the Book of Mormon refers to city-dwelling civilized folk and "black" as used in the Book of Mormon and Moses refers to backwoods nomadic hicks (kind of like "rednecks" that don't actually have red necks). I don't know that I fully buy that, but I do find it compelling for the Moses scripture since it notably lacks the word "skin" in it anywhere (as opposed to the Book of Mormon). In that light, there is no place for the seed of Cain among the seed of Adam because he and his descendants are cursed to be vagabonds. This falls apart once you see that Cain's Enoch built a city, but the spirit of separation and classism is still there. Again, I'm not sure that Nibley has it right, but there is a strong argument for an alternate reading.

My purpose for posting the scripture references was to point to where the “theory” of the curse of Cain and the black skin comes from in the scriptures, not to attempt to prove the theories correct. 

As I said in a previous post, considering how flimsy the evidence is for the black skin being the curse of Cain I’m not surprised the church would be anxious to disavow such theories. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, it's definitely not going anywhere. Somehow you are one of the ones as to the reasons why it goes nowhere. Strange...

The problem with making a claim such as yours is because it's basically- well, you are wrong but I'm can't tell you why but you are definitely wrong and you don't really understand things but I can't tell you why.

Understand why it's not going anywhere?

...

Because you are unwilling to consider the possibility that the scriptures cover the doctrine(s) in the endowment in great depth, therefore you will not seek out said knowledge. I cannot explain it to you because to do so would first, require speaking about things in the temple that should not be discussed publicly, and second, because it's expressly against the rules to "interpret" the temple for other people here.

I don't care much that you think I'm wrong. My brain isn't the one missing information. If you knew the information and claimed I was wrong it would just be a difference of opinion. But you don't even believe that information is there, so you have no standing to claim my right or wrongness...but like I said, I don't care if you think I'm wrong. And I'm sure you'd think I was wrong either way. But if you're not willing to seek out what I might be meaning or talking about on your own -- as we're meant to do with temple learning -- then that's your prerogative.

For anyone who is willing, the temple doctrine(s) are plentifully covered by scripture in abundance, repeatedly, throughout, and in very good details. Some of the teachings are, granted, sometimes cryptic without the hindsight of the temple, in some cases. But it's there all right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Because you are unwilling to consider the possibility that the scriptures cover the doctrine(s) in the endowment in great depth, therefore you will not seek out said knowledge. I cannot explain it to you because to do so would first, require speaking about things in the temple that should not be discussed publicly, and second, because it's expressly against the rules to "interpret" the temple for other people here.

I don't care much that you think I'm wrong. My brain isn't the one missing information. If you knew the information and claimed I was wrong it would just be a difference of opinion. But you don't even believe that information is there, so you have no standing to claim my right or wrongness...but like I said, I don't care if you think I'm wrong. And I'm sure you'd think I was wrong either way. But if you're not willing to seek out what I might be meaning or talking about on your own -- as we're meant to do with temple learning -- then that's your prerogative.

For anyone who is willing, the temple doctrine(s) are plentifully covered by scripture in abundance, repeatedly, throughout, and in very good details. Some of the teachings are, granted, sometimes cryptic without the hindsight of the temple, in some cases. But it's there all right.

Yeah, I doubt it, calling your bluff. Are you trying to tell me that the signs and tokens in the endowment are in the scripture? I doubt they are. How are you supposed to argue a point you aren't willing to put forth any evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, I doubt it, calling your bluff. Are you trying to tell me that the signs and tokens in the endowment are in the scripture? I doubt they are. How are you supposed to argue a point you aren't willing to put forth any evidence?

Who's on first

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, I doubt it, calling your bluff. Are you trying to tell me that the signs and tokens in the endowment are in the scripture? I doubt they are. How are you supposed to argue a point you aren't willing to put forth any evidence?

I'm not arguing. Why would I argue a point I'm unwilling to even attempt to "prove"? Your understanding of the scriptures is your business. I'm simply stating what I have found to be the case. Believe what you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not arguing. Why would I argue a point I'm unwilling to even attempt to "prove"? Your understanding of the scriptures is your business. I'm simply stating what I have found to be the case. Believe what you will.

Okay, kind of hard to discuss something when there's nothing to back it up or any substance to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2018 at 1:21 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Lastly, theory includes the whole set of principles and doctrines in its whole concerning the thought process and application. 

As long as we continue to misunderstand the true definitions of doctrine and principle we will continue to stumble. We are an imperfect people with yet still an imperfect view and practice of our religion. It may be the most correct, its just not "all" correct...yet.

Our "thought process" is made through a brain that has been affected by the Fall of Adam, a corrupted brain.  All you have done is to explain the situation we are in which is the need to discern truth through spiritual mindedness and not through the human brain.  We cannot discern spiritual truth through carnal means or carnally mindedness. This is why this life is a test of faith. Our test of logic and reasoning was the first estate test.  We all passed that test.  There is no need to repeat that test again here.  Here, we have a different test, one based in faith and our ability to focus on spiritual influences over carnal ones.

Elder Bednar;

"As sons and daughters of God, we have inherited divine capacities from Him. But we presently live in a fallen world. The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41).

The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We are here on the earth to develop godlike qualities and to bridle all of the passions of the flesh."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fifthziff said:

Our "thought process" is made through a brain that has been affected by the Fall of Adam, a corrupted brain.  All you have done is to explain the situation we are in which is the need to discern truth through spiritual mindedness and not through the human brain.  We cannot discern spiritual truth through carnal means or carnally mindedness. This is why this life is a test of faith. Our test of logic and reasoning was the first estate test.  We all passed that test.  There is no need to repeat that test again here.  Here, we have a different test, one based in faith and our ability to focus on spiritual influences over carnal ones.

Elder Bednar;

"As sons and daughters of God, we have inherited divine capacities from Him. But we presently live in a fallen world. The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41).

The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We are here on the earth to develop godlike qualities and to bridle all of the passions of the flesh."

I agree with a lot of what you say. We still need to use logic and discern knowledge though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I agree with a lot of what you say. We still need to use logic and discern knowledge though.

 

Thanks, I guess my point is that if there is perfect knowledge then there is no test of faith and so it is supposed to be this way while in this life. We should strive and desire for perfect knowledge and understanding but it is not a necessary part of this life, to have absolutes.  Our ability to discern is very, very limited right now.  I suppose it all depends on how far one considers we have fallen from our previous condition.  For some reason, some think we haven't fallen very far from our previous level of knowledge and understanding.  I believe we fell very far from that level, a level of understanding that occurs after living who-knows-how-long, in the presence of God until we were mature spirits.  So the test we face is not in the obtaining of the knowledge but how we go about obtaining it.  Do we turn to carnal methods or spiritual methods?  Which one is our master?  When the veil is lifted after this life, I think we will all clearly see how far down we are in our current level of knowledge and all that we had learned will come flooding back into our minds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 7:02 PM, mordorbund said:

Thanks for humoring me. Elder Alvin Dyer did the best job of presenting a unified theory for these different passages, including many if not all of the other reasons given at the time for the priesthood ban. But, as Elder McConkie said, everyone speaking before the revelation was walking in limited light. Ham may have been married to a descendant of Cain, and Cain's mark may have been black skin, but these ideas came primarily from Fundamentalists in the 19th and 20th centuries. These are not based on LDS scripture. In fact, as I'm sure you're aware , early rationales for the ban revolved around the curse of Cain and the Book of Abraham wasn't used for a proof text until much later (and I can't tell you when the Book of Moses was brought into it, but I suspect it was even later).

All that to say, the scriptural proof texts for the curse of Cain, Cain's mark, and Egypt's denial of legitimate priesthood used to be considered airtight. But then came a new revelation and the previous assumptions can now be revisited and seen for the leaps they were. That doesn't mean that the assumptions are false (and I still hear them bandied about on occasion), just that we should recognize that they aren't as explicit in our scriptures (even LDS scriptures) as was once thought.

Actually, THOSE traditions have roots that originate or come from ancient Jewish traditions.  The sons of Noah is seen as an explanation of the three races that the Jewish culture knew about.  The Africans who had black skins were the sons of Ham, those who were Jewish were the Sons of Shem, and the rest were the sons of Japeth.  It gives an interesting insight in regards to Europeans and what they think they are related to and their blessings of superiority.  In theory, the JEWS were the superior sons of Noah and those promised to rule and reign.

I think there is a more Modern LDS take on the black skins vs. that of white skins.  In regards to the Book of Mormon it has had a word change in that reflection, where instead of an actual skin tone or color, it is instead a reflection of the righteousness of the people.  Thus instead of white it should be pure, and instead of black it would be more impure.  This is NOT something shared by everyone else though, but it is an LDS thought that has been utilized (and this even BEFORE the 1940s in some instances! Long before the Civil Rights Movement).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

To add my 2 cents to this I found an awesome graphic on a site I do my scripture study on. Sometimes I learn more effectively with a visual so here goes. 

There are eternal laws and doctrines (teachings) rest upon those laws. Principles comes out of doctrines, and “a theory is founded on inferences drawn from principles which have been established on independent evidence” (Webster’s 1828 definition). A theory isn’t a man-made hypothesis like the theory of organic evolution or global warming, but it does feel a lot like holy speculation. What happens if I act on this true principle? What will the result be? A strengthening of faith?

To me, I think theory is the perfected understanding that comes from cause and effect relationships. If I do X, then Y happens. There are lots of "If" - "Then" statements in the scriptures I think correlate with this.

Here's a link to the site I got this from. It's worth checking out. https://scripturenotes.com/instructed-more-perfectly-in-theory-principle-doctrine-and-law

theory doctrine principle law pic from scripture notes.png

Edited by aspen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aspen said:

To add my 2 cents to this I found an awesome graphic on a site I do my scripture study on. Sometimes I learn more effectively with a visual so here goes. 

There are eternal laws and doctrines (teachings) rest upon those laws. Principles comes out of doctrines, and “a theory is founded on inferences drawn from principles which have been established on independent evidence” (Webster’s 1828 definition). A theory isn’t a man-made hypothesis like the theory of organic evolution or global warming, but it does feel a lot like holy speculation. What happens if I act on this true principle? What will the result be? A strengthening of faith?

To me, I think theory is the perfected understanding that comes from cause and effect relationships. If I do X, then Y happens. There are lots of "If" - "Then" statements in the scriptures I think correlate with this.

Here's a link to the site I got this from. It's worth checking out. https://scripturenotes.com/instructed-more-perfectly-in-theory-principle-doctrine-and-law

theory doctrine principle law pic from scripture notes.png

The only change I would make to this is adding "theory" to "Doctrine" as I would say most theory stems from the doctrine not necessarily just the principles. Easy example:

Doctrine = Heavenly Mother

> Theory 1

> Theory 2

> Theory 3

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aspen said:

To add my 2 cents to this I found an awesome graphic on a site I do my scripture study on. Sometimes I learn more effectively with a visual so here goes. 

There are eternal laws and doctrines (teachings) rest upon those laws. Principles comes out of doctrines, and “a theory is founded on inferences drawn from principles which have been established on independent evidence” (Webster’s 1828 definition). A theory isn’t a man-made hypothesis like the theory of organic evolution or global warming, but it does feel a lot like holy speculation. What happens if I act on this true principle? What will the result be? A strengthening of faith?

To me, I think theory is the perfected understanding that comes from cause and effect relationships. If I do X, then Y happens. There are lots of "If" - "Then" statements in the scriptures I think correlate with this.

Here's a link to the site I got this from. It's worth checking out. https://scripturenotes.com/instructed-more-perfectly-in-theory-principle-doctrine-and-law

theory doctrine principle law pic from scripture notes.png

I think this misinterprets the meaning of these verses, which are the only two times the word "theory" occurs in any scripture:

D&C 88:78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

D&C 97:14 That they may be perfected in the understanding of their ministry, in theory, in principle, and in doctrine, in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God on the earth, the keys of which kingdom have been conferred upon you.

The graphic you offer and the 1828-Websters-based definition it gives suggest you interpret "theory" to be "holy speculation". I don't believe this is correct, and in fact I think it is contrary to the verses above in which the word "theory" is used. The Lord is not commanding or even suggesting that we teach holy speculation in his kingdom. Rather, I think the 1828 dictionary's definitions #3 and #4 are closer to the spirit of what we're looking for:

3. The science distinguished from the art; as the theory and practice of medicine.

4. The philosophical explanation of phenomena, either physical or moral; as Lavoisier's theory of combustion; Smith's theory of moral sentiments.

As per #3, there is the practice of the gospel and there is the theory of the gospel that (we hope) motivates the practice. That theory is built on eternal principles, the teachings of which principles constitute the doctrine of the kingdom. The law of the gospel is then the teachings (doctrines) of the gospel and the principles on which they are based, the resulting framework or theory, and the actions that proceed from those.

Perhaps it's a pet peeve, but I think it's dangerous to put our own speculations as somehow an important part of what we are to teach. I think that is false. I admit that, in the end, we can only teach what we think we know, so if our understanding is deficient, we can't help but teach imperfectly. But that's life in this fallen sphere. I think it's unavoidable, and I see that as much different from proactively teaching one's speculative inferences, a practice I have seen followed many times in the Church, almost always to ill effect.

EDIT: It wasn't @aspen's graphic or definition citation. He was just using them. My bad.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Good point. I asked the site owner and he clarified this for me. When he wrote that he meant just hearing "theory" sounds a lot like holy speculation because we associate theory with speculation. But in this more in-depth article he explains in reality it's a harmonizing of gospel principles like music theory brings together all the principles. It's like the whole thing  comes together type of theory, not speculation. He's correcting the wording in the first article to not confuse people. He also said he would probably have done the graphic a little better to reflect this if he'd been thinking more clearly about it when he made the graphic.

https://scripturenotes.com/gospel-theory-a-harmony-of-principled-living

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share