- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
I think the earrings thing is an example of why we have to distinguish between what someone says off-handed while they are in the office of president vs. an official pronouncement of the FP. But that doesn’t mean people don’t act like it’s a real pronouncement.
Amen Sister! The problem is that it’s hard to convince the more orthodox (I’m trying to get away from “TBM” but it really fits here) that it wasn’t a pronouncement, if only because a prophet said it in GC. I know it’s not my job to convince everybody to come around to my way of thinking (we’d seriously be in trouble if it was) and I’m fine with that except when it’s taught as doctrine. That is to say, I’m not going to stand at the pulpit and say this or that isn’t doctrine and don’t believe it – but to an extent I expect the same respect from others. Why do we have such a hard time focusing on what really matters?
They put the two earring off hand comment in the FTSOY pamplet. I would say most members consider it doctrine. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
cwald wrote:They put the two earring off hand comment in the FTSOY pamplet. I would say most members consider it doctrine.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I agree, it’s just like the R rated movie thing. I believe neither of them exist on the current version though.DarkJedi wrote:cwald wrote:. I believe neither of them exist on the current version though.
Really? Can someone confirm this?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Good OP! I’m so excited to read through the list and give it some thought!!
As far as using scriptures as doctrine…Be careful b/c somewhere in the OT women are told to cove their heads during prayer…which I guess we do in the temple (grrr)…but not anywhere else.
So there has to be a “filter” to use when looking at the scriptures for “our” doctrine.
Still…thanks for starting this thread!
:clap: cwald wrote:DarkJedi wrote:cwald wrote:. I believe neither of them exist on the current version though.
Really? Can someone confirm this?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
OK, I looked again, I was wrong about the earrings – still there, one pair, along with no body piercings and tattoos. The movie rating thing was removed quite a while ago though. The current version says “Do not attend, view, or participate in anything that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in anything that presents immorality or violence as acceptable. Have the courage to walk out of a movie, change your music, or turn off a computer, television, or mobile device if what you see or hear drives away the Spirit.”The “R” rated movie references have all been removed, and it’s not talked about in GC anymore because only the USA uses an “R” rating, and more than half the members live outside the USA. It’s still stuck in the minds of TBMs in the US, but is pretty much meaningless in other parts of the world. So it’s “Tradition” in the US that we don’t go to “R” rated movies. But it always amazes me why we give up our free agency to the MPAA, a corrupt, politically driven board that gives out the ratings. Shouldn’t this be part of our “Moral Agency”?
I think it should, Sheldon. I said earlier that I have seen PG13 movies that are worse than R movies. I do think the FTSOY is on the right track there with a more general anything offensive directive. What I consider violence or vulgar may not be violent or vulgar to you. I used to work at a prison where the “f bomb” was as common a word as any – hearing it does not faze me. Others, like my wife, find it much more appalling. Baptism – D Clean shaven men – T (in the guise of GP or LP)
We call each other “Brother” and “Sister”, and use last names – T
Polygamy (polygyny) is practiced in the celestial kingdom – Q
We meet in a 3 hr block on Sunday – GP
We observe the Sabbath on Sunday – GP
Using right hand to take the sacrament – T
We don’t use the cross in our worship – T/GP
Word of Wisdom – CW
Implementation of Word of Wisdom – Q
Using right hand to sustain – GP
Bishop partaking the Sacrament first – T/LP
Wording in sustaining various calls – LP
Principle of tithing, home teaching, temple attendance, fast offerings – CW
Implementation of tithing, home teaching, temple attendance, fast offerings – Q/T
Deacons wear white shirts – T/LP
Men wear dress shirts and ties, women dresses, to church – T/LP
In the hereafter there is (no) movement between kingdoms – T/Q
God is living in (or out of) time – Q
How about expanding the list ??
What constitutes “serious sin” which has to be resolved with priesthood? – CW
Priesthood ban – Q/CW/GP
Women and the Priesthood – Q/CW/GP (these two are hard to nail down for me…)
Evolution is false – T (happy to share with those who are on the fence about this one)
Earth created in 6000 years and has been around for 6000 years – T (my early research was in evolutionary biology at BYU lol)
All statements by GA/Ensign articles, etc. are scripture – T (a pretty staunch one)
“The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior.” – Q/T (but it colors so much of how conventional members respond to scientific advancement)
“One declaration [from God] trumps all the opinions of the lower courts, whether uttered by psychologists, counselors, politicians, friends, parents, or would be moralists of the day” – Q/T (same line of thinking as previous quote)
shoshin wrote:
The four standard works. Right? Maybe I don’t get your question.There’s plenty about temples in the scriptures.
I would add to “the list” in line with temples…
Why men can know the wives’ new name, but not the other way around?
Women veiling their faces (though there is a reference in the OT about women covering their heads while praying, but that might be a bit of a stretch for me to consider it doctrine in the temple ceremony).
Washings and Anointings…obviously something is amiss there as the “way” it is done has changed over time.
For that matter…the entire wording and actions of the temple.
The temple video!
No ring exchange during sealing.
Waiting a year after civil marriage before a sealing can take place.
*if men can be sealed to more than one woman in the temple, why can’t it be the other way around? In D&C it sure sounds like a woman can “have” another man as long as he is anointed with the holy anointing to her, so…?
The whole line of TR questions.
Thanks again for giving us some things to think about and a measuring stick of sorts.
🙂 An interesting thought I had when I was completing this is how many of these “guidelines” or whatever are simply counter-cultural things we do to be different from other faiths: no crosses, LDS artwork (not unique by chapel), no rings exchanged, etc. And others are designed to align us with the “establishment” rather than “counter-culture movements”: no tattoos, no facial hair, no long hair for men, business dress at church, etc. @hawkgrrrl”]An interesting thought I had when I was completing this is how many of these “guidelines” or whatever are simply counter-cultural things we do to be different from other faiths: no crosses, LDS artwork (not unique by chapel), no rings exchanged, etc. And others are designed to align us with the “establishment” rather than “counter-culture movements wrote:I wonder why we don’t consider the cross taboo incompatible with the vivid references to the crucifixion in the temple.
Interesting points Hawkgrrrl and Ann. My understanding of the whole cross thing is that it was not unusual for members to wear crosses until the McKay administration. Apparently Pres. McKay didn’t like them, and more specifically as I recall, he didn’t like that they became popular for young women to wear. I don’t personally have a problem with the cross, I think it is a recognized symbol if Christianity. I do understand the church’s explanation that we like to focus on the living Christ and I think that’s true but I honestly don’t think the cross detracts from that – it is empty after all. The crucifix is different, although I don’t have a problem with it, either. Ann, I had given the temple reverences to the crucifixion absolutely no thought – I now do wonder how they two go hand-in-hand. Sheldon – you haven’t told us what you think. How do you rate each of the items on your list? DarkJedi wrote:Interesting points Hawkgrrrl and Ann. My understanding of the whole cross thing is that it was not unusual for members to wear crosses until the McKay administration. Apparently Pres. McKay didn’t like them, and more specifically as I recall, he didn’t like that they became popular for young women to wear.
I believe it did start with President McKay.
What I think interesting is that it seems our leadership was asked this question often enough that they had to come up with an answer. I am sure many of them didn’t even know the origins…and then began to say that we focus on the living Christ instead of the dead one.
Like Dark, I think that’s true, but that isn’t the
reasonwe stopped using crosses. This is much like the double earring debacle.
This is also much like the “no caffeine” cultural presence.
All because a church leader expressed an opinion.
I sure wish our leaders would say, “You know what? We don’t know the reason.” Instead of making something up…that leads us further away from the truth (I think) and then including them in official church publications.
I think it a bit worrisome that leaders would rather further vain traditions instead of either correcting misnomers or researching them on their own.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.