Calm Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 Well anytime you don't peruse the LDS.org sight for information it is questionable by people in the church for authenticity.CFR
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I am not sure there is a reason to CFR we all know that what she is saying is pure BS. I am just going to call it.
Tacenda Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I join with Kemara's CFR on this. Do they? Where?Are you sure you're not conflating the teaching materials we are supposed to use in Church classes with what members are encouraged to read in their own time? Because you know, the two things are not the same.Your question seems to presuppose that the internet circumscribes the boundaries of where anyone should or could look. Why is that?Regards,PahoranI just underlined my CFR. Just as I said in my previous post. The church needs to integrate it into curriculum and the seminary program.
Tacenda Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) CFRHow many times have you and others on the board poo, poo'd my posts because they were not church sites that I used? That is my CFR, now hoping someone will please be honest, that you aren't allowed to use a site no matter how true unless it's from the church or faithful church members etc, if it's concerning the church history etc.? Edited November 13, 2012 by Tacenda
Tacenda Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I am not sure there is a reason to CFR we all know that what she is saying is pure BS. I am just going to call it.Thanks!
Calm Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) How many times have you and others on the board poo, poo'd my posts because they were not church sites that I used? That is my CFR, now hoping someone will please be honest, that you aren't allowed to use a site no matter how true unless it's from the church or faithful church members etc, if it's concerning the church history etc.?I use FAIR all the time.... (you did not indicate "faith church members" before, but "church approved").I also use the Saints Without Halo sites as they have great references. No one has ever told me not to.Then there is Margeret Barker's stuff and David Wright and several other nonLDS scholars... Edited November 14, 2012 by calmoriah
Kemara Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) How many times have you and others on the board poo, poo'd my posts because they were not church sites that I used? That is my CFR, now hoping someone will please be honest, that you aren't allowed to use a site no matter how true unless it's from the church or faithful church members etc, if it's concerning the church history etc.? My request was a formal Call for References that "they" [the church] say we should only read church approved materials. Your response does not constitute a reference. Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements contravenes the board guidelines. Either provide the references or withdraw the comment. Edited November 14, 2012 by Kemara 1
Tacenda Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 My request was a formal Call for References that "they" [the church] say we should only read church approved materials. Your response does not constitute a reference. Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements contravenes the board guidelines. Either provide the references or withdraw the comment.You got it, I'll do some homework.
Kemara Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) ... now hoping someone will please be honest, that you aren't allowed to use a site no matter how true unless it's from the church or faithful church members etc, if it's concerning the church history etc.?This is a formal Call for References that we are not allowed to use a site no matter how true unless its from the curch or faithful church memebers etc, if its concerning church history etc. Failure to provide an appropriate reference to support your statement contravenes the board guidelines. Please provide the reference or withdraw the comment. Edited November 14, 2012 by Kemara
Tacenda Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 I use FAIR all the time.... (you did not indicate "faith church members" before, but "church approved").I also use the Saints Without Halo sites as they have great references. No one has ever told me not to.Then there is Margeret Barker's stuff and David Wright and several other nonLDS scholars...I know you are not a black and white thinker and appreciate your openmindness Cal. This is just a touchy subject for me I know I need to use my words differently next time.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 You got it, I'll do some homework.That is the context to which I was calling BS. Oh well moving on.
Tacenda Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 This is a formal Call for References that we are not allowed to use a site no matter how true unless its from the curch or faithful church memebers etc, if its concerning church history etc. Failure to provide an appropriate reference to support your statement contravenes the board guidelines. Please provide the reference or withdraw the comment.My CFR is my experience on the board. I guess I better read up on the previous posts I made to give you an idea.
Kemara Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 ...that you aren't allowed to use a site no matter how true unless it's from the church or faithful church members etc,...(emphasis mine)Who are/is these "etc"? Slightly less than faithful church memebers? Please clarify and define.
Tacenda Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 That is the context to which I was calling BS. Oh well moving on.Oh, this isn't what was said before.
Tacenda Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Who are/is these "etc"? Slightly less than faithful church memebers? Please clarify and define.Usually members whose faith couldn't withstand the truth.
Kemara Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 My CFR is my experience on the board. I guess I better read up on the previous posts I made to give you an idea. Your experience on this board does not constitute an appropriate reference. Your statement went to the fact of permission or policy in that we are not "allowed" to use particular sites. You are therefore required to provide references from the person, group or organisation who gives permission or creates policy for faithful LDS. Failure to do so will contravene board guidelines and will require you to withdraw the statement.
Kemara Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) Usually members whose faith couldn't withstand the truth.Excuse me? That makes absolutely no sense. If we were to take your explanation and apply it to the sentence in question we would end up with something like the following:"That is my CFR, now hoping someone will please be honest, that you aren't allowed to use a site no matter how true unless it's from the church or faithful church members or members whose faith couldnt withstand the truth." Orwellian double-think perhaps? Edited November 14, 2012 by Kemara
canard78 Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 1. If biological evidence is correct and (as a human race) we are not all biologically descended from one ancestor 6000 years ago, and,2. If Adam was a person who lived 6000 years ago, then3. We are not all biologically descended from Adam.If we are all descended from one ancestor (Adam) then science can tell us "Adam" is not a man who lived 6000 years ago, instead he must be a man who lived at some earlier time.In this sense science can tell us some parts of who the mythological entity Adam is - is not.I know, I know, far too late to the conversation (IT issues) and my time zone means I'm never in the thick of the debates, but...1. Temple prep classes teach us that "the characters depicted... are symbolic" - I've been comfortable for a long time that Adam (Adam = Man) is a spiritual construct to teach a principle. Taught as fact rather than parable gives greater weight to the story. http://www.lds.org/manual/endowed-from-on-high-temple-preparation-seminar-teachers-manual/lesson-5-learning-from-the-lord-through-symbols?lang=eng2. Having said that, Symbolic doesn't have to mean fictional. This does not discount the possibility that Adam, father of Cain, Able, Seth etc (Michael in flesh) also existed in actual reality. If he did, and if he has one living descendant then science would say he is everyone's common ancestor (but not the sole origin of our species). In Europe one only needs to go back 800 years to find a CA in Charlemagne. 6000 years would be plenty for all living people to have Adam as a CA. This is a great article in layman's terms (for people like me that need it in simple language):http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.htmlI think Talmage and Roberts hinted at this in the past but stopped short of saying so categorically to avoid heresy. http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/dialogue/id/5329Maybe I'm being heretical, but I'm comfortable with the notion that Adam is one of our common ancestor but not the origin of the species. At the same time I'm comfortable being taught Adam as the literal first man to teach a principle about our human nature, purpose of life, need for a Saviour. He just wouldn't work as a parable. "As in the parable of Adam all die so in Christ are made alive." Doesn't work. The same principle applies to Lehi (to bring back to OP). He can be a CA but among millions of others. I don't have DNA of every one of my ancestors because science proves I have billions, in fact I have more ancestors than people who have ever lived. (Read the Humphrys article). 2
Tacenda Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Excuse me? That makes absolutely no sense. If we were to take your explanation and apply it to the sentence in question we would end up with something like the following:"That is my CFR, now hoping someone will please be honest, that you aren't allowed to use a site no matter how true unless it's from the church or faithful church members or members whose faith couldnt withstand the truth." Orwellian double-think perhaps?I withdraw my comment on the grounds that through the years I've been told to only read church approved materials on church history in order to feel confident that it's trustworthy.
Kemara Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) I withdraw my comment on the grounds that through the years I've been told to only read church approved materials on church history in order to feel confident that it's trustworthy.You withdraw your comment on practically the same grounds that you made the comment? Mind boggling. Edited November 14, 2012 by Kemara
Tacenda Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 You withdraw your comment on practically the same grounds that you made the comment? Mind boggling.I'll clarify, I cannot CFR my life experience with being told not to look at anti material and stick with church approved material.
Pahoran Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Get back to the topic please!Welcome to the board, Nanny. If you think the discussion has strayed too far from the topic -- and that happens often enough -- then feel free to click the little "Report" in the bottom right of the post.Regards,Pahoran
Scott Lloyd Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) I'll clarify, I cannot CFR my life experience with being told not to look at anti material and stick with church approved material.Since Tacenda has indicated an inability to document her anecdotal information, I'll contrast it with my own.Through a lifetime of Church membership now in its sixth decade, I've never heard or read an authoritative Church source state that one is forbidden to examine sources that are not "Church approved."The closest thing I have seen to such counsel is to be sure "to always give the Lord equal time." I interpreted that to mean that one should balance one's study by including the scriptures and the words of living prophets and apostles. I regard that as a reasonable admonition. Edited November 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
bcuzbcuz Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 My CFR is my experience on the board. I guess I better read up on the previous posts I made to give you an idea.I can fully understand that admonitions to read church literature come from the pulpit. I can recall it being said many times. In my sphere of experience I never encountered anyone saying to only read church literature but I can imagine that someone, sometime has said such. And I know why. Had I not, purely by chance, with nothing guiding me other than boredom, while taking a break from writing my thesis, picked up a certain volume in the university library, I might still be an active, believing member of the church.When I first wrote a comment to someone's post here, on MDDB, I was shouted at, capital letters to "PROVE IT". I'm still as opinionated as always but I usually couch my words carefully.
Recommended Posts