62 replies to this topic

[Ryan.Samples]

BCSpace, on 28 April 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

That is an incorrect or incomplete representation.  The doctrine is published by the Church and merely resides in the Standard Works et. al.  You cannot open any of the Stadard Works and point to verses and tell someone else what the doctrine is in most cases without referring to some other work published by the Church.  For example, you do not know that the water in John 3:5 means water baptism as opposed to the evangelical interpretation of physical birth.  Another example is the doctrine that those who do not have opportunity to marry in this life will have such an opportunity in the next.  Or abortion being like unto murder.  Etc.

The upshot is that it takes modern prophets and apostles to establish the doctrine out of the scriptures as well as continuing revelation (which is rarely canonized).  It is then officially published in a manual, or magazine, and yes, even artwork, al of which the Church lists of sources for us to use in teaching the doctrine, keeping it pure, and as the voice of the Church.

A scripture only view does nothing but deny the prophets and apostles and the need thereof and is in complete opposition to how the Church sees it's own doctrine.

Elder Christofferson's recent GC talk is an excellent illustration of this even though it concentrated more on the establishment side than the publication side (though he did give an example of such).



Not being published by the Church, one can indeed safely ignore the JoD or BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" etc.  However, items from those are often found in works published by the Church and those items are therefore official doctrine because of that.

There's another ongoing thread that discusses how the Word of Wisdom was at first essentially a "suggestion" but under Grant (if I recall correctly!?) it became doctrine. If that development proves accurate, it would seemingly prove an example of "doctrine" found not in the standard works.

The JoD has always proven an interesting discussion point for me. At some point in the near future I'll throw a new thread out there so I can get some wider feedback from the forum members. I know LDS folks who never look at them (either because they don't seem super relevant to their personal growth in this age or because they essentially have suspect publication origins as described above), whereas others throw themselves into detailed study of the Journal (Journals, plural is more correct?).

[Ryan.Samples]

Thought the crowd might be interested to see the email Liberty students received on this topic. I'm not going to edit the paragraph breaks, etc, so it's just a copy and paste deal.

Dear Ryan,
My office has received hundreds of messages from students and 2012 graduates who are thrilled and honored that the presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States will be our Commencement speaker.  Some graduates have also inquired about Liberty’s policies regarding the doctrinal beliefs of graduation speakers.  These same questions seem to surface every spring and I am writing you in response to those inquiries.
First of all, it is important to remember that Liberty actually has two Commencement speakers each year.  Long ago, most universities ceased their practice of including a Baccalaureate service during their Commencement weekend, but we have insisted on keeping this service as a demonstration of our Christian commitment to the Great Commission and the Great Commandment.
This year our Baccalaureate speaker is Luis Palau.  Dr. Palau is an evangelist who has preached the Gospel to a billion people. Palau is often considered second only to Billy Graham in his influence for the Gospel, and, as is our tradition, he will be clearly delivering the Gospel at Baccalaureate.  
For twenty-five years Liberty has traditionally had leaders from the worlds of politics, business, and entertainment speak during the Commencement ceremony on Saturday. Most of these leaders have not traditionally shared Liberty’s doctrinal convictions. In the last few years, our Commencement speakers have included an evangelical filmmaker (Randall Wallace), a Mormon commentator (Glenn Beck), a Jewish economist (Ben Stein), an evangelical actor and athlete (Chuck Norris), an evangelical  - now Catholic - politician (Newt Gingrich), a Catholic commentator (Sean Hannity), a Southern Baptist senator (John McCain), and an Episcopalian chief of staff to President Bush (Karl Rove). In all, at least 20 of Liberty's 38 Commencement speakers have fit in this category.
My father's vision for Liberty University was both a theological and a cultural vision. Theologically, it was to found the world's preeminent Christian university where every faculty member professed faith in Jesus Christ, agreed with our doctrinal statement, and sought to fulfill the Great Commission and live the Great Commandment.  Culturally, it was to found a university that held in high regard our nation's founding principles of limited government, the free enterprise system, and individual liberty.  Liberty's tradition has been to focus on the first part of this vision during the Friday night ceremony and the second part on Saturday morning.
Liberty's commitment to an annual Baccalaureate service has ensured that we have never held a Commencement that did not include a strong gospel message from an evangelical leader.
I am sure that members of the Liberty University community will treat Gov. Romney with the respect he deserves, regardless of whether they agree with his religious or political beliefs.
When my father traveled the nation speaking at many secular universities, he was often met with boos and hisses by those who held different theological beliefs than he.  I am so proud that Liberty students have gained a reputation for treating those whose beliefs are different than their own in a Christ-like manner. They have shown respect to speakers as divergent from Liberty's worldview as Ted Kennedy, Bob Beckel, and Tim Kaine.  
Gov. Romney is a man who has excelled in business, governed a state, and even managed the Olympic games.  He has been faithfully married to his wife, Ann, for 43 years, and they have 5 sons and 16 grandchildren.  Gov. Romney is a leader of global significance, who might eventually be the leader of the free world, and we are honored that he accepted our invitation.
An invitation to speak at Commencement is not an ad-hoc endorsement of a presidential candidate or even of that particular speaker’s religious or political views. The ultimate purpose of having a prominent Commencement speaker is not to promote the speaker or his views but rather to inspire and challenge the graduates and showcase Liberty and its mission.  
My prayer is that having the presumptive Republican nominee as our speaker will cause many who have never heard of Liberty to take notice of what Liberty is doing to train a generation of Champions for Christ.  Perhaps, many of them will consider a Christian education over the secular alternative.
Sincerely,

Jerry Falwell, Jr.
Chancellor and President

[Ryan.Samples]

Sleeper Cell, on 28 April 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

Nobody disputes the fact that LDS General Conference is strictly a religious event. Of course, people expect religious speakers at a strictly religious event.  I fail to see any analogy with commencement.  Even you admit that Commencement isn’t a religious event, per se, even at an Evangelical school.  (The fact that you feel it should be is an admission that it isn’t).  It seems to me that if you wanted LU to make commencement a strictly religious event, you should have not waited until Romney was invited.

I will attribute your “communist” remark to the lateness of the hour.

The communist remark didn't have anything to do with the hour. If the school largely invites only pro-capitalism speakers, then true diversity would include inviting other kinds (read: not Republicans, not capitalists, etc) of speakers.

You can and should discard the other part of my post. I had a good comparison in mind and it got all jumbled up. One should not try to play in the deep end of the pool when tired. I apologize for that negligence...

[ERayR]

Ryan.Samples, on 29 April 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

The communist remark didn't have anything to do with the hour. If the school largely invites only pro-capitalism speakers, then true diversity would include inviting other kinds (read: not Republicans, not capitalists, etc) of speakers.

Liberty U normally invites speakers who share their basic values. IMNSHO a communist would be about as far from Liberty's basic values as you could get.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ryan.Samples, on 27 April 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

And why exactly do you applaud the school for inviting him?

Seriously? I get the feeling you are trolling me.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

USU78, on 26 April 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Sometimes it takes a generation.  Jerry Sr. was a liar, but he was lied to as well.  I like to think that he's been brought up to speed by now.

Nice to see you man. I hope all is well. Interesting story.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ryan.Samples, on 29 April 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Jerry Falwell, Jr.
Chancellor and President

Thanks for sharing.

[Ryan.Samples]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 30 April 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

Thanks for sharing.

Not especially insightful, but I figured "why not?"

[selek1]

bluebell, on 27 April 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

Where does the LDS church say that?

It doesn't.

Ryan is trying for the trite "you do it toooo!" defense, despite the fact that he can't provide any evidence to back it up.

Even his appeal to the First Vision and McConkie's Mormon Doctrine are fallacious as he seriously (and deliberately) misrepresents both works and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Ryan's position (however obliquely stated) has been that the radical fringe at Liberty University are perfectly justified in their views and behavior.

Of course, were one to substitute "Jew" or "African American" for "Mormon" it would be an entirely different ballgame.

Ryan knows this- and so he must attempt to shift the ground from an obvious and palpable wrong to the theoretical sins of Mormonism.

This is a tactic that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson know well- he should be proud to be following so adroitly in their foot steps.

Of course, the first casualty in any such attempt is intellectual honesty.

Liberty bills itself as a center of higher learning- and a place in which to think erudite thoughts and to explore ideas with an open mind.

And yet a minority of Liberty students (and internet cheerleaders such as RS) are attempting to impose a homogeneity of thought- an orthodoxy beyond which no dissent or discussion is permitted.

Such an effort is at odds both with free speech and free thought and with Liberty's mission overall.

Such tactics are, of course, just as American and just as defensible as Massachussets in 1692, Mississippi in June 1964, and Terry Jones in 2011.

While their methods are different- the underlying goal and mission remain the same.

Conservative Christians often decry this sort of on-campus abuse and ideological purity when practiced by Leftist Secularists.

The minority at Liberty and their on-line cheerleaders seem to be in a stampede to become they very thing they would normally decry.

Edited by selek1, 30 April 2012 - 07:11 PM.

[Ryan.Samples]

selek1, on 30 April 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

It doesn't.

Ryan is trying for the trite "you do it toooo!" defense, despite the fact that he can't provide any evidence to back it up.

Even his appeal to the First Vision and McConkie's Mormon Doctrine are fallacious as he seriously (and deliberately) misrepresents both works and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Ryan's position (however obliquely stated) has been that the radical fringe at Liberty University are perfectly justified in their views and behavior.

Of course, were one to substitute "Jew" or "African American" for "Mormon" it would be an entirely different ballgame.

Ryan knows this- and so he must attempt to shift the ground from an obvious and palpable wrong to the theoretical sins of Mormonism.

This is a tactic that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson know well- he should be proud to be following so adroitly in their foot steps.

Of course, the first casualty in any such attempt is intellectual honesty.

Liberty bills itself as a center of higher learning- and a place in which to think erudite thoughts and to explore ideas with an open mind.

And yet a minority of Liberty students (and internet cheerleaders such as RS) are attempting to impose a homogeneity of thought- an orthodoxy beyond which no dissent or discussion is permitted.

Such an effort is at odds both with free speech and free thought and with Liberty's mission overall.

Such tactics are, of course, just as American and just as defensible as Massachussets in 1692, Mississippi in June 1964, and Terry Jones in 2011.

While their methods are different- the underlying goal and mission remain the same.

Conservative Christians often decry this sort of on-campus abuse and ideological purity when practiced by Leftist Secularists.

The minority at Liberty and their on-line cheerleaders seem to be in a stampede to become they very thing they would normally decry.

Folks really shouldn't refer to me as RS. Surely I'm not the only one who reads a remark and inserts Relief Society into the paragraph?

[selek1]

Ryan.Samples, on 30 April 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Folks really shouldn't refer to me as RS. Surely I'm not the only one who reads a remark and inserts Relief Society into the paragraph?

You are undoubtedly correct in that regard.  Is there a nickname for "Ryan" that begins with a "B"?

[cdowis]

Ryan.Samples, on 29 April 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

There's another ongoing thread that discusses how the Word of Wisdom was at first essentially a "suggestion" but under Grant (if I recall correctly!?) it became doctrine. If that development proves accurate, it would seemingly prove an example of "doctrine" found not in the standard works.

This is a common mistake.

There was no change in doctrine, but a change in the practice of a doctrine.  Keeping our bodies pure and as temple of God is the doctrine as it was taught in the scriptures (found in both the OT and the NT), and the Word of Wisdom is one application (practice) of that doctrine.  Thus, Christ and the apostles drank wine, but that practice has changed in our modern age.

The church makes changes to the practices of doctrines according to the needs of the members.

Edited by cdowis, 30 April 2012 - 10:45 PM.

[Storm Rider]

cdowis, on 30 April 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

This is a common mistake.

There was no change in doctrine, but a change in the practice of a doctrine.  Keeping our bodies pure and as temple of God is the doctrine as it was taught in the scriptures (found in both the OT and the NT), and the Word of Wisdom is one application (practice) of that doctrine.  Thus, Christ and the apostles drank wine, but that practice has changed in our modern age.

Ryan, this is an important point being made here.  Terminology is vital to gaining and reflecting proper understanding.  CD's explanation is important to understand.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ryan.Samples, on 28 April 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

That's all I was getting at.



That's the problem, isn't it? Which sources can one trust and which can be ignored?



Yes, of course I haven't ever read any of these things before. Clearly I just Google all this and then come on to message boards so I can get you all riled up. Obviously I'm not asking these questions for the purpose of exploration. If you're only logging in to insult me, I suspect your time is better spent elsewhere. I am amazed that you invite non-Mormons to explore your faith and then we do, with earnestness, we're anti-Mormon. Fabulous. Perhaps your time is best spent ignoring any and all of my future posts.

Why the unseemly sarcasm?

Of all the pro-Mormon posters on this board, calmoriah is arguably the most civil and congenial. And yet, she is capable of delivering a direct and effective rebuttal when occasion calls for it.

Is that the problem? Do you not like having your assertions rebutted?

[Vance]

selek1, on 30 April 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

Is there a nickname for "Ryan" that begins with a "B"?

Bovine?

[Vance]

cdowis, on 30 April 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

This is a common mistake.

There was no change in doctrine, but a change in the practice of a doctrine.  Keeping our bodies pure and as temple of God is the doctrine as it was taught in the scriptures (found in both the OT and the NT), and the Word of Wisdom is one application (practice) of that doctrine.  Thus, Christ and the apostles drank wine, but that practice has changed in our modern age.

The church makes changes to the practices of doctrines according to the needs of the members.

[CQUIRK]

Well he spoke, and was well-received by the audience and the EV critics by his speech.

So much for controversy.

[Garden Girl]

CQUIRK, on 12 May 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Well he spoke, and was well-received by the audience and the EV critics by his speech.

So much for controversy.

Yes, and I was so pleased that it was an uplifting and encouraging Commencement speech, not a political speech.  The one overtly political statement he made was that he believed in marriage being between one man and one woman, to which he received a standing ovation.  I think his speech was great.

GG

[cdowis]

As a stake president, etc, he has experience in giving uplifting, positive speeches.  Regarding SS marriage, not political at all. Just another day at the office, so to speak.

[CASteinman]

Ryan.Samples, on 30 April 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Folks really shouldn't refer to me as RS. Surely I'm not the only one who reads a remark and inserts Relief Society into the paragraph?

Actually, until you mentioned it, it never occurred to me.  I might be unusual.