Looking beyond the Mark.

[mikbone]

In this week's CFM we get to observe the ordinance of the washing of the feet.  John Chapter 13

Quote

 

6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

 

Peter's devotion is wonderful, but his zeal is over the top.  I find it perplexing when some people look beyond the Mark. 

During my residency training, my Chairman used to ask us the same question whenever one of the residents seemed unsatisfied with a result.  "What is the enemy of Good?"  His answer was - "Better."  And he was a very wise man.  When fixing a broken bone, when you obtain a stable acceptable alignment all you have to do is stand back and let nature take its course.  But occasionally someone would defy his logic and after deciding that a treated fracture was not a perfect reduction they would remove all the hardware and try to repeat the surgery - this inevitably led to a poorer outcome.  There are only so many drill holes that you can put into a bone...  

Anyways, as I was thinking about Looking beyond the Mark and reading: 

Elder Quentin L. Cook's talk - Looking beyond the Mark

Then I thought about how we (LDS) sometimes look beyond the mark.  It is ok if someone personally decides to look and act beyond the mark (that person just has to deal with the consequences).  But it is a tragedy whenever someone in authority decides to enforce their zeal upon others.   For example

1) The Word of Wisdom - declaring that Caffeine is implied within Section 89

2) Fasting -

Quote

"The law to the Latter-day Saints, as understood by the authorities of the Church, " President Joseph F. Smith said, "is that food and drink are not to be partaken of for 24 hours, 'from even to even,' and that the saints are to refrain from all bodily gratification and indulgences.  Fast day begin on the Sabbath, it follows, of course, that all labor is to be abstained from."  Mormon Doctrine - Fast Day

From the above quote I have heard that sexual intercourse is forbidden on Fast Sunday...

3) Home Teaching - I can remember many, many times during priesthood meetings when we used to have discussions / classes exclusively about home teaching numbers, failures, and new propositions / commitments for success.  These classes drove me nuts.  I can remember times when I wanted to raise my hand and just make a simple statement like "Jesus Christ" because his name, nor his doctrine had been spoken about during the intervening 30 minutes of discussion.  

Edited June 3, 2019 by mikbone

[Traveler]

30 minutes ago, mikbone said:

In this week's CFM we get to observe the ordinance of the washing of the feet.  John Chapter 13

Peter's devotion is wonderful, but his zeal is over the top.  I find it perplexing when some people look beyond the Mark. 

During my residency training, my Chairman used to ask us the same question whenever one of the residents seemed unsatisfied with a result.  "What is the enemy of Good?"  His answer was - "Better."  And he was a very wise man.  When fixing a broken bone, when you obtain a stable acceptable alignment all you have to do is stand back and let nature take its course.  But occasionally someone would defy his logic and after deciding that a treated fracture was not a perfect reduction they would remove all the hardware and try to repeat the surgery - this inevitably led to a poorer outcome.  There are only so many drill holes that you can put into a bone...  

Anyways, as I was thinking about Looking beyond the Mark and reading: 

Elder Quentin L. Cook's talk - Looking beyond the Mark

Then I thought about how we (LDS) sometimes look beyond the mark.  It is ok if someone personally decides to look and act beyond the mark (that person just has to deal with the consequences).  But it is a tragedy whenever someone in authority decides to enforce their zeal upon others.   For example

1) The Word of Wisdom - declaring that Caffeine is implied within Section 89

2) Fasting -

From the above quote I have heard that sexual intercourse is forbidden on Fast Sunday...

3) Home Teaching - I can remember many, many times during priesthood meetings when we used to have discussions / classes exclusively about home teaching numbers, failures, and new propositions / commitments for success.  These classes drove me nuts.  I can remember times when I wanted to raise my hand and just make a simple statement like "Jesus Christ" because his name, nor his doctrine had been spoken about during the intervening 30 minutes of discussion.  

Question - if someone is addicted to caffeine - the Word of Wisdom does not apply?

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

40 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Question - if someone is addicted to caffeine - the Word of Wisdom does not apply?

 

The Traveler

Beautiful.

So you make the assumption that the Word of Wisdom is about addiction?

So any substance that we are addicted to thus falls under the WoW.  

How about vitamins, water, oxygen, red meat?

I may possibly be addicted to Diet Mt. Dew.  Am I breaking the WoW?  Should I turn in my recommend? 

As a medical professional I deal with tobacco, metamphetamine and narcotic addicted individuals on a daily basis.  Caffeine dose not really get me excited.  Are individuals whom are addicted to prescription narcotic medications allowed to have temple recommends?

And I can probably quit Diet Mt. Dew anytime I want to.  

[LineUponLine]

I just like to think about our future potential to become as Heavenly Father. Can you imagine God being addicted to something that has a negative side effect?

5 hours ago, mikbone said:

How about vitamins, water, oxygen, red meat?

Obviously there are things that our body needs to be healthy. Red meat is to be eaten sparingly, therefore moderation is also needed (even water can kill you if you drink too much at one time). But I find it impossible to see God consuming something or participating in any activity that would impair his judgement or ability.

God holds us accountable to the light and knowledge we have received. Do I think that we are forever condemned if we have unhealthy habits? Not necessarily, but God does want to see that we are ever improving ourselves and I believe that as we learn line upon line (including after our resurrection) we will further understand the best use for all substances and activities that will guide us to that perfect day.

If we learn the most important commandment of obedience/humility, then: 

Ether 12:27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

All weaknesses can be overcome and lead us to be like God who is perfect in every way.

[estradling75]

6 hours ago, mikbone said:

So you make the assumption that the Word of Wisdom is about addiction?

 

While certain addictions might not cost you your recommend... Can you honesty read and study the Word of Wisdom and come away with the idea that God is approving of us having them?

It is one thing for God to tolerate our weakness (which are many) and quite another to say he is OK with them and want us to have them and not even try to overcome them.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, mikbone said:

I may possibly be addicted to Diet Mt. Dew.  Am I breaking the WoW?

Do you really not know the answer to that?

[mikbone]

I have never smoked tobacco, and the only EtOH that I have ever consumed is poorly home canned pears and half a Mike's Hard Lemonade on a vacation because i thought it was just particularly strong lemonade until a friend pointed out that I was consuming alcohol...

But I guess my point is that I don't think that the WoW should define us as a people.  

 

Oh yeah the Amish are the religion that does not believe in technology

Oh yeah, the Mormons, those guys who don't drink coffee or tea.

 

I think missionary work, big families, gospel knowledge, and most importantly living a Christ centered life should define us much more than the WoW...

Anyone want to tackle the fasting from all bodily gratification quote?

[Fether]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

I have never smoked tobacco, and the only EtOH that I have ever consumed is poorly home canned pears and half a Mike's Hard Lemonade on a vacation because i thought it was just particularly strong lemonade until a friend pointed out that I was consuming alcohol...

But I guess my point is that I don't think that the WoW should define us as a people.  

 

Oh yeah the Amish are the religion that does not believe in technology

Oh yeah, the Mormons, those guys who don't drink coffee or tea.

 

I think missionary work, big families, gospel knowledge, and most importantly living a Christ centered life should define us much more than the WoW...

Anyone want to tackle the fasting from all bodily gratification quote?

I’ll back what is said above.

there are different degrees of living the word of wisdom. Someone who is doing illegal drugs is breaking the word of wisdom. Additionally, if someone doesn’t take care of their body, and only eats junk food, they too are breaking the word of wisdom to a lesser degree. A person who takes care of their body is more spiritually alive than one who does not.

It’s  the same with the law of chastity. Someone having unclean thoughts is breaking the law of chastity. Though they may not need their recommend taken from them, they are spiritually dying while I’m the thought.

As far as the quote in question, I would interpret that as meaning we are not supposed to watch TV on Sundays, play sports, or other recreational activities that may distract us from the spirit of the fast.  I may be wrong, but I feel like removing sex with your spouse could be counter intuitive as that is a sacred act. 

But im also open to the possibility of being wrong

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

But I guess my point is that I don't think that the WoW should define us as a people.

The fact that you think it does says a lot more about you than it does about what really defines us a people. 

[Guest Mores]

@mikbone,

You've got me agreeing with and cheering on @The Folk Prophet.  You MUST be on shaky ground.

16 hours ago, mikbone said:

1) The Word of Wisdom - declaring that Caffeine is implied within Section 89

Who says it is not? BTW, I drink Mt. Dew a lot.  I'm not saying that by doing so, one needs to turn in their recommend.  The rubrik used for temple attendance is not at that level.  But if one understands the principles behind Section 89, we realize that this is something to be avoided.

Quote

2) Fasting -

From the above quote I have heard that sexual intercourse is forbidden on Fast Sunday...

Who says it is not?  Again, ... well, I won't get to personal.  But you're making blanket statements about how ridiculous some things are as if they are simply given.  You don't know that they are given, any more than others know they're wrong.  Why are you making it seem so one sided?

Quote

3) Home Teaching - I can remember many, many times during priesthood meetings when we used to have discussions / classes exclusively about home teaching numbers, failures, and new propositions / commitments for success.  These classes drove me nuts.  I can remember times when I wanted to raise my hand and just make a simple statement like "Jesus Christ" because his name, nor his doctrine had been spoken about during the intervening 30 minutes of discussion.  

Instead of calling people out on such an omission, wouldn't it be more helpful to actually participate in the discussion with something like:

"So, how would the Savior want us to improve on this?"  or  "What would Jesus want us to do to reach out to these people?"

This would actually bring the Spirit in the discussion and help with the process that we're all trying to work on.  With your current tactic, all you're doing is virtue signalling.  In fact, it seems that your call for LESS virtue is some sort of twisted sense of virtue -- looking beyond the mark.

15 hours ago, mikbone said:

So you make the assumption that the Word of Wisdom is about addiction?

Not ALL about addiction.  But it is certainly a part of it.

Quote

How about vitamins, water, oxygen, red meat?

Strange that a medical professional doesn't know the definition of addiction.

Addiction is a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences.

By that definition, none of those qualifies (except, perhaps, red meat -- but that's still being debated).

8 hours ago, mikbone said:

But I guess my point is that I don't think that the WoW should define us as a people.  

Not "define", true.  But it is something that sets us apart.  It is ONE factor that makes us a peculiar people.  And that's exactly what we're supposed to be.

Now, analyzing your tactics, I'll pre-empt what I assume you're going to rebut with.  Just because we're supposed to be a peculiar people, does not mean we need to seek out any and all behavior that will draw attention to us and make us more peculiar.  The Lord has given us a set of covenants that set us apart.  We obey those covenants.  And that is the level of "peculiarity" that the Lord wishes to use to set us apart.

My family and I are more peculiar all on our own simply because we're just weird.

The overall point is that (other than the discussions in priesthood) all the comments you've made are complaining about people who are simply trying to go the extra mile and accusing them of virtue signalling.  I simply don't agree with that assessment.  Sincerely trying to obey a commandment the best they can is not looking beyond the mark.  

Looking beyond the mark is not about taking the level of obedience to the next level.  It is about looking at something unimportant and using that to cancel out all the rest of the important stuff.  Of all the behavior which you're condemning, what behavior actually attempts to nullify all the important stuff?

Edited June 4, 2019 by Mores

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, mikbone said:

Beautiful.

So you make the assumption that the Word of Wisdom is about addiction?

So any substance that we are addicted to thus falls under the WoW.  

How about vitamins, water, oxygen, red meat?

I may possibly be addicted to Diet Mt. Dew.  Am I breaking the WoW?  Should I turn in my recommend? 

As a medical professional I deal with tobacco, metamphetamine and narcotic addicted individuals on a daily basis.  Caffeine dose not really get me excited.  Are individuals whom are addicted to prescription narcotic medications allowed to have temple recommends?

And I can probably quit Diet Mt. Dew anytime I want to.  

Attempting to justify something as "good" by pointing to something definitely worse is neither scientific nor brilliantly intelligent.   I do not believe the Word of Wisdom (operative word being WISDOM) is entirely about a list of inviolate do's and don'ts that must be adhered to for a temple recommend.  I would recommend for all to consider divine wisdom like a union with layers upon layers upon layers - or as Isaiah said "Line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.

Since you brought up temple recommends - it is my personal believe that sitting in a temple recommend interview is not about being able to answer a prescribed list of questions in order to meet minimal requirements - but rather a divine counsel where one can report their personal progress and intended covenants of discipline for the future.  

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Mores said:

You've got me agreeing with and cheering on @The Folk Prophet.  You MUST be on shaky ground.

???

I'm not quite following what your objective is with this comment. I'm aware you're trying to be funny. But it feels like the kind of funny the schoolyard bullies use to make fun of the loser kids.

[Guest Mores]

38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

???

I'm not quite following what your objective is with this comment. I'm aware you're trying to be funny. But it feels like the kind of funny the schoolyard bullies use to make fun of the loser kids.

I wasn't implying you're a "loser kid".  I merely pointed out that you and I have disagreed on a LOT of stuff.  So, if two people of such different mindsets can agree on something, chances are there is something to our agreement.

[Anddenex]

21 hours ago, mikbone said:

 

During my residency training, my Chairman used to ask us the same question whenever one of the residents seemed unsatisfied with a result.  "What is the enemy of Good?"  His answer was - "Better."  And he was a very wise man.  When fixing a broken bone, when you obtain a stable acceptable alignment all you have to do is stand back and let nature take its course.  But occasionally someone would defy his logic and after deciding that a treated fracture was not a perfect reduction they would remove all the hardware and try to repeat the surgery - this inevitably led to a poorer outcome.  There are only so many drill holes that you can put into a bone...  

Anyways, as I was thinking about Looking beyond the Mark and reading: 

Elder Quentin L. Cook's talk - Looking beyond the Mark

Then I thought about how we (LDS) sometimes look beyond the mark.  It is ok if someone personally decides to look and act beyond the mark (that person just has to deal with the consequences).  But it is a tragedy whenever someone in authority decides to enforce their zeal upon others.   For example

1) The Word of Wisdom - declaring that Caffeine is implied within Section 89

2) Fasting -

From the above quote I have heard that sexual intercourse is forbidden on Fast Sunday...

3) Home Teaching - I can remember many, many times during priesthood meetings when we used to have discussions / classes exclusively about home teaching numbers, failures, and new propositions / commitments for success.  These classes drove me nuts.  I can remember times when I wanted to raise my hand and just make a simple statement like "Jesus Christ" because his name, nor his doctrine had been spoken about during the intervening 30 minutes of discussion.  

In this week's CFM we get to observe the ordinance of the washing of the feet.  John Chapter 13: Peter's devotion is wonderful, but his zeal is over the top.  I find it perplexing when some people look beyond the Mark. 

I think you and I have at least one different connotation defining what it means to "look beyond the mark." I wouldn't define Peter's devotion in the example given as looking beyond the mark, as in this case it appears to stem more from naivety rather than looking for things they ought not to, or that he was place rules over doctrine.

During my residency training, my Chairman used to ask us the same question whenever one of the residents seemed unsatisfied with a result.  "What is the enemy of Good?"  His answer was - "Better."  And he was a very wise man.  When fixing a broken bone, when you obtain a stable acceptable alignment all you have to do is stand back and let nature take its course.  But occasionally someone would defy his logic and after deciding that a treated fracture was not a perfect reduction they would remove all the hardware and try to repeat the surgery - this inevitably led to a poorer outcome.  There are only so many drill holes that you can put into a bone...  

I think the concept in our wards of how often we seek to create a new program in order to solve something is similar to the idea you are presenting while going through residency training. Instead of keeping it simple, we want to make more work for everyone (which only makes more work for those few in the ward who are willing to help).

1) The Word of Wisdom - declaring that Caffeine is implied within Section 89

I don't fully agree with this, as any addictive substance can be implied with the Word of Wisdom, but if a stake president or counselors, or bishop and counselors were to deny someone a temple recommend for caffeine (as this isn't the same right now as coffee, tea, alcohol, etc...) I would agree this is looking beyond the mark.

You might have a Diet Mt. Dew love, where I have a Mt. Dew love. At this moment, fortunately it isn't something that keeps me from the temple, but is it the most healthy thing for me to drink? Probably not.

2) Fasting

I can see where people might include "sexual intimacy" in that quote, as sex is a bodily gratification (I would add more so for men than women); however, that is a personal choice and I wouldn't say anyone is looking beyond the mark. I would say the person is looking beyond the mark if they begin to preach to others that they shouldn't do such. This is what made the Jews look beyond the mark. Religious hobbies can be formed in these cases if not kept in check, whereby a person then judges themselves to be more righteous then their counterparts because they do not indulge in sex during Fast Sunday.

We are to look to God and discover where we might become more like him. In this part, it is knowing what is taught and then discovering how best to live those principles. Some people might say, that is extreme, and that is OK. But if that is what helps them to draw closer to God, and they do not preach or expect others to live their "law" so to speak, then I am good with it.

Example, a previous teaching was against R rated movies. If you search on churchofjesuschrist.org you won't find much (at least I haven't been able to). I had friends who made a decision to not only not watch R movies, but to never watch PG-13 movies either. I think that is wonderful. That is their choice. Now, if they were to start judging their neighbor and also start preaching that no one should watch PG-13 movies, they may very well be walking that line of looking beyond the mark.

3) Home Teaching - I can remember many, many times during priesthood meetings when we used to have discussions / classes exclusively about home teaching numbers, failures, and new propositions / commitments for success.  These classes drove me nuts.  I can remember times when I wanted to raise my hand and just make a simple statement like "Jesus Christ" because his name, nor his doctrine had been spoken about during the intervening 30 minutes of discussion.

I don't think there was anything wrong with discussing the duties of the priesthood; however, I know when I was EQP for our ward I didn't have these discussions. I made sure our presidency didn't either, unless moved upon by the Spirit. In the beginning, I was more inclined toward this discussion. This was in our trainings and discussions from leadership in Salt Lake City to our local wards. Jesus Christ though was always mentioned because that is who we are trying to serve.

I stopped because I recognized the Lord, from the handbook, already had given an opportunity for these discussions to occur in private (stewardship interviews). I was EQP three years and only once was I moved upon by the Spirit to address home teaching, and it wasn't the whole class.

I don't think members realized their accountability before God, and with ministering it is all the more evident by principle. I am not sure though how you can talk about Home Teaching without addressing the doctrine behind it, that would have been odd class to be part of. It is the doctrine that Home Teaching was rooted in, same as ministering.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Mores said:

I wasn't implying you're a "loser kid".  I merely pointed out that you and I have disagreed on a LOT of stuff.  So, if two people of such different mindsets can agree on something, chances are there is something to our agreement.

You really don't see how if someone said, "Even Mores agrees with me on this one, so..." that it would be condescending?

And for the record, we don't disagree anywhere near as much as you seem to be pretending.

[The Folk Prophet]

33 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Now, if they were to start judging their neighbor and also start preaching that no one should watch PG-13 movies, they may very well be walking that line of looking beyond the mark.

It kind of depends on how, when and where they "preach" such a thing, and how adamant they are in their preaching, etc.

37 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am not sure though how you can talk about Home Teaching without addressing the doctrine behind it, that would have been odd class to be part of. It is the doctrine that Home Teaching was rooted in, same as ministering.

This was my thought and is whenever people talk about how little Christ is mentioned in any given church situation, as if using His name is key to the discussion being focused correctly.

Can I just add for @mikbone's sake: That idea is flawed.

Whose program are we discussing? In whose gospel is said program established. Whose organization is it? Whose leaders were called by whom and asked by whom to run said programs?

Church leaders aren't getting together to discuss THEIR program. They're discussing Christ's program. Everything about those discussions is about Christ. Whether discussing numbers is the best practice or not is irrelevant to that. The numbers were discussed for Christ's kingdom's sake.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

23 hours ago, mikbone said:

2) Fasting -

From the above quote I have heard that sexual intercourse is forbidden on Fast Sunday.

Lol, I suppose if people want to interpret it that way, they can. What I think would be looking beyond the mark would be those people judging  others who feel differently than they do. 

My goal is to maintain high standards for myself, and just love everyone else.  If moved by the Spirit I might do something that others feel is looking beyond the mark. But I think the real problem is them judging me or if I were to judge them. For example, I homeschooled my children because the Spirit directed me to do so (it has been a great blessing), but if I were to judge others for not doing the same, THAT (not my choice to homeschool) would be looking beyond the mark. 

Thanks for the link to the talk, I'll check it out.

By the way, I love Peter and his enthusiasm. I note that he was the one chosen to lead the church after the Savior was go e, so I don't think his zeal was problematic.  

[Anddenex]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It kind of depends on how, when and where they "preach" such a thing, and how adamant they are in their preaching, etc.

True.

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This was my thought and is whenever people talk about how little Christ is mentioned in any given church situation, as if using His name is key to the discussion being focused correctly.

Can I just add for @mikbone's sake: That idea is flawed.

Whose program are we discussing? In whose gospel is said program established. Whose organization is it? Whose leaders were called by whom and asked by whom to run said programs?

Church leaders aren't getting together to discuss THEIR program. They're discussing Christ's program. Everything about those discussions is about Christ. Whether discussing numbers is the best practice or not is irrelevant to that. The numbers were discussed for Christ's kingdom's sake.

We have agreement regarding the specific name of "Jesus Christ' mentioned. I remember when the Spirit taught me on my mission that even the mention of Joseph Smith is highlighting Jesus Christ. You can't speak the name of Joseph Smith without knowing by whom he was called. I can't speak of Peter, James, and John without knowing whose servants they are.

Yet, sadly due to anti-Mormon (Christ) literature, who have been wise like unto Korihor, Sherem, and Nehor, we have had members leave the Church because one or two sacrament meetings didn't say the name of Jesus Christ.

[Vort]

23 hours ago, mikbone said:

From the above quote I have heard that sexual intercourse is forbidden on Fast Sunday...

Makes perfect sense. Since a fast is a period when we abstain from satisfying our fleshly desire for food, it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that that idea extends to other fleshly desires, however otherwise good they may be. Eating is a good thing, after all. It's life-giving. Without eating, we die.

If one teaches that sexual activity is not permitted during a fast, then one has gone beyond the mark in taking upon oneself the duty to interpret what only our apostolic leaders have authority to interpret for the Saints as a whole. But to gain and then live by some personal spiritual insight, including perhaps that one, and even to share it with others as an idea or ideal, seems perfectly reasonable to me. I see nothing "beyond the mark" about that.

[Vort]

23 hours ago, mikbone said:

3) Home Teaching - I can remember many, many times during priesthood meetings when we used to have discussions / classes exclusively about home teaching numbers, failures, and new propositions / commitments for success.  These classes drove me nuts.  I can remember times when I wanted to raise my hand and just make a simple statement like "Jesus Christ" because his name, nor his doctrine had been spoken about during the intervening 30 minutes of discussion.

Not quite understanding this, mikbone.

Let's say an elders quorum is discussing some service they might render to a brother who needs help around his property. For thirty minutes, the discussion goes back and forth as men plan what time they can devote, who can bring a pickup, who has chain saws, whether anyone has an auger, and so forth. After a half hour, do you feel the need to stand up and say, "Jesus Christ!" because his name hasn't been spoken in that time during a Priesthood meeting? When we're handling matters of how to proceed in doing our duty, is it really necessary to invoke the name of Jesus every so often just so that, you know, someone said "Jesus"?

I feel like I'm missing something of what you're trying to get across. I assume you're not saying what I suggest above, but then I'm not sure what it is that you are saying. If men were trying to understand how better to fulfill their Priesthood duties of home teaching, certainly the name and example of our Savior would be appropriate. But if it doesn't come up in conversation because people are focusing on the mechanics of what they're trying to do, how is that bad? And if it's bad because it's ignoring the Source and Motivation of our efforts, would it not be better to say something like, "What did the Savior suggest?" rather than just blurting out his name?

Believe it or not, this is a sincere question.

[Vort]

I see that @Mores and others have already discussed every point I made. So I guess I should read a whole thread before responding. Oops.

[Guest Mores]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You really don't see how if someone said, "Even Mores agrees with me on this one, so..." that it would be condescending?

And for the record, we don't disagree anywhere near as much as you seem to be pretending.

Think about how the first sentence informs the second sentence.

[Guest Mores]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

I see that @Mores and others have already discussed every point I made. So I guess I should read a whole thread before responding. Oops.

I believe you can guess what I'm thinking of when I see this image with that particular phrase.

[Vort]

50 minutes ago, Mores said:

I believe you can guess what I'm thinking of when I see this image with that particular phrase.

Rosanna Rosannadanna?

[mikbone]

1)  First thing first.  Shall we agree that occasionally the ‘Church’ puts forth uninspired policy?  For example, the ban on males of African descent being ordained to the priesthood.  There is excellent evidence that Joseph Smith either ordained or at least presided over the ordination of Elijah Able to the office of Elder and then Seventy. 

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2015/03/25/was-elijah-ables-ordained-by-joseph-smith-a-response-to-w-paul-reeve/

Joseph Smith never mentioned any ban of priesthood ordination.  Neither do any of the standard works discuss this policy.  But during Brigham Young’s administration this became policy and had been propagated for over a century until President Spencer W. Kimball petitioned the Lord in order to have clarification of the policy. 

I myself bought into the nonsense, because I had read McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine and had been educated in the line of though that supported the ban.  After an LDS of African descent who understood the origins of the policy asked me some pointed questions, I recited to him the material that I had been indoctrinated with.  I argued my point expertly and noticed his dejected expression.  I then decided to do some real research, and I learned that He was correct, and that I was wrong. 

2) The Word of Wisdom as listed in Section 89 and the current policy as practiced by the Church are not necessarily reflective of reality.  There is excellent documentation of Joseph Smith & Wilford Woodruff partaking of alcoholic beverages.  Coffee was consumed by the saints during the migration to UTAH.  During the 1920’s Heber J. Grant instituted the complete abstention of alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea as required for the temple recommend interview one year after the passage of the US 18th amendment. 

Do I live by the Word of Wisdom?  Yes, It is current policy.  But I suspect that within the next decade that It will no longer be part of the temple recommend list of questions… 

Do we realize what is policy vs. core doctrine?  Do we understand why we do what we do?

Is tobacco and alcohol bad?  Absolutely!  As an orthopaedic surgeon, I would much rather that my patients smoke marijuana than tobacco because nicotine is destructive to bone healing.  I have a long history of alcoholism in my family tree.  I don’t partake. 

Should a sister that is addicted to smoking, and is honestly attempting to stop, be prevented from attending the temple?  I’m not so sure…  One of my close friends just died, and she had never taken out her endowment because she couldn’t overcome the addiction. 

What is worse for your body, caffeine or birth control pills?  How about prescription medications.  If a woman takes BCP for 15 years and then goes off the pill and finds out that she is infertile, there is a high possibility that she actively caused the infertility. 

3) When we read The Family: A proclamation to the World, do we agree with its proposals?  Is it policy or doctrine?  For example, take this passage.

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

When I read this, I seem to have a radical interpretation that is contrary to the majority of the US members.  I read that Fathers are to preside, provide and protect their families.  While Mothers are responsible for the nurture of children.  The exceptions are disability, divorce, or death.   Yet I see many LDS mothers having a job outside of the house and the husbands supporting their wife’s career… 

4) As for the Home Teaching.  I am so happy that we have moved on to ministering.  And I will not miss the hours of wasted priesthood lessons that I have sat through discussing our areas of improvement, and numbers… Many times, I sat through those classes and thought to myself what would Jesus Christ or Joseph Smith say or do if they were listening to this lecture.  Most likely something like.

5) I welcome the changes that President Nelson has in store for the church.  I predict that there will continue to be revelation that arrives during General Conference as well as in-between conferences wherein official publications and statements will continue to define how we are to better prepare ourselves. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by mikbone