Written revelation certainly makes things more clear, especially when something (like the priesthood ban) is verbally portrayed as revelation only to later find out that it is not.
0
84 replies to this topic
#41
Saints Alive
-
- Members
-
- 1,870 posts
Pure Mormon
Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:00 PM
"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him" - John Morley
"A fool with a tool is still a fool" - Unknown
http://mormonthoughandopinion.blogspot.com/
"A fool with a tool is still a fool" - Unknown
http://mormonthoughandopinion.blogspot.com/
#42
semisonic
-
- New Member
-
- 8 posts
Newbie: Without form, and void
Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:07 PM
I think Joseph's strength of character comes from the fact that his dad ,Sr, had a problem with alcohol and that Joseph didn't want to partake of said problem or experience like his father. Not sure if this is why Joseph refused or not, but could be why it shows strength of character
#43
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:08 PM
Saints Alive, on 27 April 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:
Written revelation certainly makes things more clear, especially when something (like the priesthood ban) is verbally portrayed as revelation only to later find out that it is not.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#44
semisonic
-
- New Member
-
- 8 posts
Newbie: Without form, and void
Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:14 PM
About the priesthood ban, evidence's point, imo, that is was more so a mistaken policy by Brigham Young and not revelation taking into consideration the context of things of when he started preaching it, and Joseph having given the priesthood to such as Elijah Abel etc... Elder Holland was asked last month about priesthood authority and blacks and the priesthood in one long question when he was speaking at Harvard in the Q&A session.....his response indicates that they are called men of god but they are human and make mistakes(in a nutshell) Listen to it:
interesting response. Of course Elder's Holland's response might just be his opinion.
interesting response. Of course Elder's Holland's response might just be his opinion.
#45
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:04 PM
semisonic, on 27 April 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:
About the priesthood ban, evidence's point, imo, that is was more so a mistaken policy by Brigham Young and not revelation taking into consideration the context of things of when he started preaching it, and Joseph having given the priesthood to such as Elijah Abel etc... Elder Holland was asked last month about priesthood authority and blacks and the priesthood in one long question when he was speaking at Harvard in the Q&A session.....his response indicates that they are called men of god but they are human and make mistakes(in a nutshell) Listen to it:
interesting response. Of course Elder's Holland's response might just be his opinion.
interesting response. Of course Elder's Holland's response might just be his opinion.
In responding, I'm somewhat hindered by the fact that the question to which you refer was not audible on the recording, so I have only Elder Holland's response to go by.
I note, first off, that he did not say anything that, to a knowledgeable Latter-day Saint, would seem particularly new or startling; we have always acknowledged that prophets and apostles have human failings. Nor did he refer specifically to the question of blacks and the priesthood, and he most definitely did not acknowledge or identify errancy in the pre-1978 policy.
The Church in the past, and in a statement very recently, has disavowed misguided conjecture, by Church leaders and others, to try to explain the mind of God with regard to the policy when they did not possess the knowledge to make such an explanation. But I believe in doing that, the Brethren have gone as far as they feel they can properly go. That is, they have not repudiated the policy itself or said that it was not God-directed, stating only that the reasons for it are unknown.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#46
Mark Beesley
-
- Contributor
-
- 3,638 posts
A Deseret BookMark
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:20 PM
Saints Alive, on 26 April 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:
Ok I am not trying to reinvent the wheel as much as I want to reevaluate all the justifications for the Paradox of the WoW specific prohibition of wine and the fact the Jesus not only drank wine but made a whole batch of the stuff at a wedding party (and I am assuming they had a lot before the party) when they ran out.
Why was it ok for jesus to drink wine yet now it is considered such a sin as to keep you out of the temple?
Possible explanations:
1. Jesus drank a 'different' wine than what we have now so it didn't have the same alcohol content.
(i have heard this from several sources but I happen to know that if anything wine was STRONGER in jesus time than it is now)
2. It was ok because wine had a different cultural significance.
(i dont think that culture can justify sin, if so than we'd better prepare for gay marriage to become ok)
3. it was ok because the WoW wasn't a commandment yet.
(even if the WoW wasn't a commandment yet, we all know from the story of cain and abel that murder was wrong before the law of moses)
Why was it ok for jesus to drink wine yet now it is considered such a sin as to keep you out of the temple?
Possible explanations:
1. Jesus drank a 'different' wine than what we have now so it didn't have the same alcohol content.
(i have heard this from several sources but I happen to know that if anything wine was STRONGER in jesus time than it is now)
2. It was ok because wine had a different cultural significance.
(i dont think that culture can justify sin, if so than we'd better prepare for gay marriage to become ok)
3. it was ok because the WoW wasn't a commandment yet.
(even if the WoW wasn't a commandment yet, we all know from the story of cain and abel that murder was wrong before the law of moses)
Can you think of a time in the history of the world where it was more dangerous not to have complete control of one's faculties as it is today? (Think in terms of drunk drivers, sexually transmitted diseases, and the proliferation of guns..)
I think the Lord recognized the dangers we were going to be facing in the 20th and 21st Centuries and knew that alcohol wasn't going to be much help in getting through safely. But, that's just my opinion.
And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and thre was no poor among them. Moses 7:18
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:44-45
And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. 4 Nephi 1:3
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:44-45
And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. 4 Nephi 1:3
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875
#47
semisonic
-
- New Member
-
- 8 posts
Newbie: Without form, and void
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:20 PM
He was asked about blacks in the priesthood and be it as it may he address the "human" failings of church leaders in response to the questions a part of his answer.......you can interpret that as you may as that was Elder Holland's intent i believe in his answer.
#48
Ryan.Samples
-
- Members
-
- 54 posts
Member Title
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:25 PM
Scott Lloyd, on 27 April 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:
Maybe, but not necessarily.
I disagree. I believe he was inspired with divine wisdom and foresight to emphasize and making binding a revelation that had previously been received. I'm confident this happens all the time among the Brethren.
I submit that the Brethren are in constant receipt of revelation regarding the day-to-day operation of the Church. They don't codify every such instance, nor is it necessary that they do so.
This is the begging-the-question fallacy. I submit that your view about the pre-1978 policy about the priesthood stems from your misconception that every single revelation received by prophets must be written down, announced as such and codified.
I disagree. I believe he was inspired with divine wisdom and foresight to emphasize and making binding a revelation that had previously been received. I'm confident this happens all the time among the Brethren.
I submit that the Brethren are in constant receipt of revelation regarding the day-to-day operation of the Church. They don't codify every such instance, nor is it necessary that they do so.
This is the begging-the-question fallacy. I submit that your view about the pre-1978 policy about the priesthood stems from your misconception that every single revelation received by prophets must be written down, announced as such and codified.
This exchange represents the problem that, in my experience, many non-Mormons have with LDS teachings. Did God say to do something or not? If the original revelation indicates it isn't a commandment, then it isn't a commandment. If someone comes along and then declares it is a commandment, then shouldn't the words of that new guy become part of canon? If the new Grant revelation is binding, why isn't it codified? If--as I read in another thread recently--the canonized standard works hold authority / precedence over all other utterances, then wouldn't we need to have the commandment canonized?
I have long asserted that in order to truly know what the church both teaches now and has taught in the past, one has to sift through every General Conference talk, every sermon, every Ensign article, to find out what God is purportedly saying. If I have to look outside the standard works to find the commandment for the Word of Wisdom, on how many other topics does the faithful saint or diligent researcher have to likewise look outside the standard works?
Are you picking up what I'm putting down?
I'm an Evangelical Christian interested in broadening my understanding of LDS theology, culture, and religious practice. Just a convenient disclaimer so you remember I'm a member of the Notamo Stake.
#49
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:28 PM
semisonic, on 27 April 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:
He was asked about blacks in the priesthood and be it as it may he address the "human" failings of church leaders in response to the questions a part of his answer.......you can interpret that as you may as that was Elder Holland's intent i believe in his answer.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 27 April 2012 - 02:34 PM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#50
Ryan.Samples
-
- Members
-
- 54 posts
Member Title
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:29 PM
Mark Beesley, on 27 April 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:
Can you think of a time in the history of the world where wine and other alcoholic beverages were mass produced and marketed like they are today?
Can you think of a time in the history of the world where it was more dangerous not to have complete control of one's faculties as it is today? (Think in terms of drunk drivers, sexually transmitted diseases, and the proliferation of guns..)
I think the Lord recognized the dangers we were going to be facing in the 20th and 21st Centuries and knew that alcohol wasn't going to be much help in getting through safely. But, that's just my opinion.
Can you think of a time in the history of the world where it was more dangerous not to have complete control of one's faculties as it is today? (Think in terms of drunk drivers, sexually transmitted diseases, and the proliferation of guns..)
I think the Lord recognized the dangers we were going to be facing in the 20th and 21st Centuries and knew that alcohol wasn't going to be much help in getting through safely. But, that's just my opinion.
Does this position amount to Pharasic hedging? My alma mater (Liberty University) prohibits its undergraduates from attending dances and prohibits all students of any level and all faculty / staff to abstain from alcohol. I still can't get a good explanation for either restriction, since apparently neither Jesus nor Martin Luther could work at the school. That notion amuses me, I must confess.
I'm an Evangelical Christian interested in broadening my understanding of LDS theology, culture, and religious practice. Just a convenient disclaimer so you remember I'm a member of the Notamo Stake.
#51
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:30 PM
Ryan.Samples, on 27 April 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:
This exchange represents the problem that, in my experience, many non-Mormons have with LDS teachings. Did God say to do something or not? If the original revelation indicates it isn't a commandment, then it isn't a commandment. If someone comes along and then declares it is a commandment, then shouldn't the words of that new guy become part of canon? If the new Grant revelation is binding, why isn't it codified? If--as I read in another thread recently--the canonized standard works hold authority / precedence over all other utterances, then wouldn't we need to have the commandment canonized?
I have long asserted that in order to truly know what the church both teaches now and has taught in the past, one has to sift through every General Conference talk, every sermon, every Ensign article, to find out what God is purportedly saying. If I have to look outside the standard works to find the commandment for the Word of Wisdom, on how many other topics does the faithful saint or diligent researcher have to likewise look outside the standard works?
Are you picking up what I'm putting down?
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 27 April 2012 - 02:33 PM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#52
Ryan.Samples
-
- Members
-
- 54 posts
Member Title
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:32 PM
Ryan.Samples, on 27 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:
Does this position amount to Pharasic hedging? My alma mater (Liberty University) prohibits its undergraduates from attending dances and prohibits all students of any level and all faculty / staff to abstain from alcohol. I still can't get a good explanation for either restriction, since apparently neither Jesus nor Martin Luther could work at the school. That notion amuses me, I must confess.
Sorry, I haven't figured out how to edit (can't edit?) my posts. The school clearly doesn't prohibit the act of abstaining from alcoholic beverages. "That don't make no sense."
I'm an Evangelical Christian interested in broadening my understanding of LDS theology, culture, and religious practice. Just a convenient disclaimer so you remember I'm a member of the Notamo Stake.
#53
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:32 PM
Ryan.Samples, on 27 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:
Does this position amount to Pharasic hedging?
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#54
Ryan.Samples
-
- Members
-
- 54 posts
Member Title
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:34 PM
Scott Lloyd, on 27 April 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:
The fact that prophets and apostles over a long period of time have continuously sustained the efficacy of President Grant's action is enough for me to conclude that he was indeed acting under divine revelation.
Does that not lead down the path to consensus revelation? We all decide it is true, we sustain it is true, so it is true. Adultery is a sin only until a) someone says it is now okay and b) lots of people agree with the new interpretation or application. That seems a slippery slope to me.
I'm an Evangelical Christian interested in broadening my understanding of LDS theology, culture, and religious practice. Just a convenient disclaimer so you remember I'm a member of the Notamo Stake.
#55
Ryan.Samples
-
- Members
-
- 54 posts
Member Title
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:35 PM
Scott Lloyd, on 27 April 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:
Not to me. In fact it makes a great deal of sense.
"You shouldn't use the Interwebz because there are pornographic images scattered about there. In order to ensure you don't view them, you must never use the Internet." See what I did there?
I'm an Evangelical Christian interested in broadening my understanding of LDS theology, culture, and religious practice. Just a convenient disclaimer so you remember I'm a member of the Notamo Stake.
#56
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:50 PM
Ryan.Samples, on 27 April 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:
Does that not lead down the path to consensus revelation? We all decide it is true, we sustain it is true, so it is true. Adultery is a sin only until a) someone says it is now okay and b) lots of people agree with the new interpretation or application. That seems a slippery slope to me.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#57
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:53 PM
Ryan.Samples, on 27 April 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:
"You shouldn't use the Interwebz because there are pornographic images scattered about there. In order to ensure you don't view them, you must never use the Internet." See what I did there?
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#58
Ryan.Samples
-
- Members
-
- 54 posts
Member Title
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:59 PM
Scott Lloyd, on 27 April 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:
The analogy breaks down in that there is a great propensity for value and good in the Internet. Today, it is virtually indispensible. The same cannot be said for the substances prohibited under the Word of Wisdom. People can live quite well -- even thrive -- without them.
No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. -I Tim 5:23
It would seem God and Paul disagree with you about alcohol's usefulness.
Furthermore, people can live quite well and thrive without the Internet. They did it for a long time before Al Gore came along.
I'm an Evangelical Christian interested in broadening my understanding of LDS theology, culture, and religious practice. Just a convenient disclaimer so you remember I'm a member of the Notamo Stake.
#59
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,871 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 27 April 2012 - 03:06 PM
Ryan.Samples, on 27 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:
No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. -I Tim 5:23
It would seem God and Paul disagree with you about alcohol's usefulness.
Mark Beesley (above) gave a good summary of how conditions today are substantially different than in Bible times.
It was God who gave the commandment to today's apostles and prophets to convey the Word of Wisdom. Ergo, if Paul were alive today and held the position of apostle, I have every reason to believe his teachings would coincide with those of other apostles of today.
Quote
Furthermore, people can live quite well and thrive without the Internet. They did it for a long time before Al Gore came along.
It's debatable that they can thrive. I shudder to think how hindered my children would be in school today were it not for the Internet.
But at any rate, there is immense value and good that comes from the Internet. I don't see a great deal of indispensable good coming from the non-medicinal consumption of alcohol, tobacco, coffee or tea.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 27 April 2012 - 03:09 PM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#60
mercyngrace
-
- Contributor
-
- 5,170 posts
a witness of His loving kindness
Posted 27 April 2012 - 03:34 PM
cinepro, on 27 April 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:
It never occurred to me that "refusing anesthesia" shows "a special strength of character". Does anyone else see it this way? Has anyone here ever declined anesthesia at the dentist or other medical situation out of a desire to build character?
I don't see refusing anesthesia as revealing a strength of character but I did refuse it and gave birth three times "naturally". I made the choice out of a reasonable fear that the medication would depress the breathing of my already prematurely arriving offspring. It was pure maternal instinct and had nothing to do with building character.
Edited by mercyngrace, 27 April 2012 - 03:35 PM.
Mitius imperanti melius paretur
The content or message of any medium is about as important as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. ~ Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message
The content or message of any medium is about as important as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. ~ Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message
Also tagged with Word of Wisdom
 |
Welcome & Come On In! →
General Discussions →
D&C 89 Conspiring Men In The Latter DaysStarted by Stone holm, 04 Apr 2013  Word of Wisdom
|
|
|
|
Welcome & Come On In! →
In The News →
Rep. Michael CrapoStarted by BookofMormonLuvr, 24 Dec 2012 word of wisdom, forgiveness
|
|
|
||
|
|
Welcome & Come On In! →
General Discussions →
Coffee Ice CreamStarted by yootaw, 23 Aug 2012 Mitt Romney, word of wisdom
|
|
|
|
Welcome & Come On In! →
General Discussions →
Word Of Wisdom - A Spiritual CommandmentStarted by CASteinman, 22 Aug 2012 Word of Wisdom, Commandment and 1 more...
|
|
|
||
Welcome & Come On In! →
General Discussions →
Poll Cooking With AlcoholStarted by JAHS, 15 Dec 2011 Word of wisdom, Alcohol, cooking
|
|
|
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
