Leadership Broadcast earlier

[consiglieri]

The trend that senator follows is more of someone calling prophets to repentance than it is worrying about minutae.

I have never seen Senator even come close to calling prophets to repentance.

CFR

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Senator]

I have never seen Senator even come close to calling prophets to repentance.

CFR

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Easy there counselor...

Jeff seems to have seen the need to let fly a personal insult at me, which is against board rules. As such, there is really no need for response.

But I do appreciate your call to arms in my behalf!

[Senator]

For what it's worth, I live where we have no scouting in the Church, and our ward has sacrament meeting first, but our AP quorum presidencies are very much in charge of their quorums. They plan and execute their weekly activities. It's reached a point where, whenever there's a fifth Wednesday in the month, they still plan and hold 'unofficial activities.' They plan and carry out camps and service projects. Back in January, we discovered at Mutual one Wednesday evening that the priests had earlier in the day all been on the roof of one of the ward's widows, cleaning out the rain gutters. We adults hadn't even heard about this til after the fact. A year-and-a-half ago, our bishop put the teachers quorum in charge of the temporal welfare of a new mum whose husband had been sent overseas for six months. Without any adult intervention at all, they regularly contacted her and took care of her gardens, cleaned her rain gutters, etc. I helped a bit when they asked me by providing transport. They care for the widows and single sisters in the ward, contacting them each week when they're not in church to check on them. Two Sundays ago, whilst collecting fast offerings, they discovered after church that one was sick, and they used my phone to ring Bishop and ask for permission to administer the sacrament in her home. They conduct their quorum meetings and presidency meetings, and they take turns conducting at Mutual. They handle all responsibilities related to the sacrament. And so on.

I'm excited to see what happens when these boys become adults, receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, and serve missions!

Quite impressive!

You have no idea the awe and wonder that is generated by mingling the body of your post with the first 14 words.

[LDSGuy]

Lectures on Faith didn't put the Doctrine in the Doctrine & Covenants. It has doctrine in it to begin with. After all Covenants are a part of the doctrine and there are many things in the D&C that outline doctrine and procedure.

[consiglieri]

Lectures on Faith didn't put the Doctrine in the Doctrine & Covenants. It has doctrine in it to begin with. After all Covenants are a part of the doctrine and there are many things in the D&C that outline doctrine and procedure.

Please do not research this issue.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Easy there counselor...

Jeff seems to have seen the need to let fly a personal insult at me, which is against board rules. As such, there is really no need for response.

But I do appreciate your call to arms in my behalf!

I didn't know CFR stood for Call For Rifles . . .

. . . but I like it! I like it!

[mapman]

(And I think it was deleted solely because of Lecture Five, teaching a different view of the Godhead than what is currently accepted.)

Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you just being cynical?

I think that the Lectures on Faith were probably removed because of the reason given when they were removed: they were never presented as revelations. Why were they included in the first place? The 1835 preface says: "The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work. The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones." Notice that the first part is stated to be theological lectures, while the second part is stated to be revelations. The preface goes on to say that the purpose of the book is to show what the Church believes. This is different than what later editions of the Doctrine and Covenants have aimed to be, which is a collection of latter-day revelations. Accordingly, the Lectures on Faith were removed because they were never, ever seen as being revelations. They probably kept the name because they saw no reason to change it since the revelations do after all contain doctrines as well as covenants.

[BCSpace]

He was very specific...he said that Handbook 2 is doctrine.

Well of course it is. It's on the Church website!

Yes, everything published by the Church is doctrine unless otherwise noted.

Just reviewed the video. The intended spoken word by Oaks were (at 4:19) are 'It is doctrinal', but you can only hear the 'Doctrin' part. You see him mouth 'al', but it is difficult to hear. The Summary also quotes him as saying 'doctrinal'. This is why we have recordings and transcripts. Because without distinctly listening and looking for it, it still very much sounds like he says, "It is doctrine."

No difference between a "work of doctrine" and a "doctrinal work".

oaks did say that but i think holland said that the scriptures were the great( or something around that ) hand book

Sure, but the scriptures don't direct that the Bishop should not take funds from the Relief Society (something found in much older handbooks) and the like.

[consiglieri]

Accordingly, the Lectures on Faith were removed because they were never, ever seen as being revelations.

Which explains exactly why they were included in the first place?

Non sequiter alert!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mapman]

Which explains exactly why they were included in the first place?

Non sequiter alert!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Did you read the rest of my post? The 1835 D&C states in its preface that in addition to the "items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations", there are also "a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place". The preface of the 1835 edition stated that the purpose of the book was to "present, though in a few words, our belief" (emphasis in original). The Lectures were taken out later because they are lectures, not revelations (how could a lecture be a revelation, anyways?), so obviously the Church saw a different purpose for the Doctrine and Covenants with later editions, for it to be a collection of revelations. I am not saying that the Lectures do not contain doctrines, but there is no evidence that they were ever seen as being revelations.

What about that doesn't follow?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Did you read the rest of my post? The 1835 D&C states in its preface that in addition to the "items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations", there are also "a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place". The preface of the 1835 edition stated that the purpose of the book was to "present, though in a few words, our belief" (emphasis in original). The Lectures were taken out later because they are lectures, not revelations (how could a lecture be a revelation, anyways?), so obviously the Church saw a different purpose for the Doctrine and Covenants with later editions, for it to be a collection of revelations. I am not saying that the Lectures do not contain doctrines, but there is no evidence that they were ever seen as being revelations.

What about that doesn't follow?

OD 1 & 2 are not revelations either, they are essentially press releases. So how does that work, if it has to be a revelation to be included? Perhaps they should be ignored until such time as a revelation is brought forward for each?

[TAO]

OD 1 & 2 are not revelations either, they are essentially press releases. So how does that work, if it has to be a revelation to be included? Perhaps they should be ignored until such time as a revelation is brought forward for each?

As far as I know, those aren't considered D&C. They are just additional information given for those uses. Same with Proc. to the Family - though that semi-borders revelation as well - I consider it revelation or very close to it.

Consider Lectures on Faith and the two Proclamations as being put in there in the same way the Bible Dictionary was put in. Usefulness. Not necessarily 100% correct though. Just practicality, I think.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

As far as I know, those aren't considered D&C. They are just additional information given for those uses. Same with Proc. to the Family - though that semi-borders revelation as well - I consider it revelation or very close to it.

But what the prophet and dispensation head Joseph Smith felt was important to be included is just a relic of a bygone era full of inaccurate Rigdonite doctrine?

[TAO]

But what the prophet and dispensation head Joseph Smith felt was important to be included is just a relic of a bygone era full of inaccurate Rigdonite doctrine?

No. It is still useful. It just isn't revelation, and also, at this point, not doctrine. As I said, compare it to the Bible Dictionary/Topical Guide. Both very useful, and much correctness in them. However, they are not on the same level as the NT, OT, BoM, or D&C.

[Deborah]

Having just skimmed over this thread I'm not sure if this has been pointed out but it seems to me the purpose of the new handbook is to follow more closely the principle Joseph Smith taught that we teach correct principles and the people govern themselves.

From the church website:

[Deborah]

Really, this obsession that many seem to have with trying to pick apart any saying of the modern prophets to determine what is doctrine and what isn't is unhealthy. My advice is to get over it.

I so agree with this. Who cares if it's "doctrine." It is still guidance from a prophet or a leader called of God, and as such one should evaluate it and apply it as it pertains to his circumstances. People get so hung up on words at GC that don't fit their lifestyle and rather than examine their lives accordingly and see if there is room for repentance or whether they are content in their hearts that they are doing what the Lord wants them for their circumstances, they just start rationalizing it away and criticizing whoever spoke. When this happens I suspect there is some feeling of guilt and maybe those are the people who really need to look at what they are doing.

For the most part if I hear something that doesn't apply to my circumstances I just don't think about it anymore. Like all the talks on families and children. That bridge was crossed long ago. On the other hand there are things that make me think whether I can find some improvement. In this world of soundbites people get hung up on words rather than the principles behind them.