- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Here is a link to the document: http://staylds.com/docs/drafts/OfficialDoctrine2010-02-04.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://staylds.com/docs/drafts/OfficialDoctrine2010-02-04.html Don’t pay too much attention to formatting. I just did a quick export from Word to HTML. Let me know if you have suggestions or concerns about any of the content. I am currently waiting on Don to get back to me on our latest round of edits to see if he approves/agrees. This document is almost done and ready to host/promote, from my perspective.
I really like it.I didn’t do a thorough editing of every little grammatical issue, but the following are my quick suggestions:
1) “In the 19th century, temple goers were asked if they maintained proper fences to prevent their cows wonder into a neighbor’s field.”
Should read “. . . prevent their cows from wandering into . . .”.
2) GREAT Elder McConkie quote about books written by GA’s! (Just had to add that.)
3) “There’s lots of things many people erroneously believe are Official Doctrine.”
Should read “There are lots . . .”.
4) I would use “fobidden” instead of “verboten”. It sounds less pretentious in a general essay for everyone.
5) “The Church has a set of policy, procedures, pronouncements and pontifications go out to 14 million members.”
I would suggest, “The Church has a set of policies, procedures and pronouncements that go out to millions of members.” (Numerical figures will be out-of-date quickly.)
6) “She fretted about the impossibility to obedient.”
Should read, “. . . impossibility of being obedient.”
7) “Much of the perceived inconsistencies can be resolved by understanding that Church authorities have a unique stewardship. When they speak, they are talking to 14 million members in 160 different countries.”
Should read, “Much of the perceived inconsistency (or “Many of the perceived inconsistencies”) can be resolved by understanding that Church authorities have a unique stewardship. When they speak, they are talking to millions of members in many different countries.” (Keeps the statement timeless.)
“Nevertheless, we can’t just take a canned set of gospel fixes of the shelf to solve our problems.” “of” should be “off”
Thanks for pointing those out Ray. I did a lot of edits, but still need to go through and do some more. What did you think of the overall tone of the material? Good for the nature of our site?
Brian, which part of the bolded sentence at the beginning of my comment didn’t you understand? 😆 😈 Duh… I read carefully. Really I do 
I incorporated all your suggestions Ray. I have not heard back from Don in a week or so. I will do another pass through to look at grammar issues and then tell him I am publishing it unless I hear back in the next couple of days. The beauty of online publishing is the ability to make future updates and clarifications easily. I think Don was being overly concerned about making it perfect before publishing.
Final Draft:
http://staylds.com/docs/drafts/OfficialDoctrine2010-02-24.htm ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://staylds.com/docs/drafts/OfficialDoctrine2010-02-24.htm I like it. I can’t get to the link for some reason. Perhaps you can email it to me? I’d love to take a look. hawkgrrrl wrote:I can’t get to the link for some reason. Perhaps you can email it to me? I’d love to take a look.
Just sent you HTML and MS Word copies via email:
hawkgrrrl@yahoo.com I’m on it! Thanks! Brian- I can’t get to the link either. Could you email me a copy, I’d like to take a look too.
Sent to Euphemerus I finalized with Don. I’m just going through the painful process of converting his MS Word doc into HTML. I am not comfortable posting the automatic export from within Word, it is full of a TON of Microsoft-specific tags and code.
My only qualm so far with it is this:
Quote:Yet Mormonism is not dogmatic. There is no creed or statement of core beliefs which adherents are obliged to accept. Both members and leaders alike hold varying opinions ranging from whether watching TV on Sunday is sinful, to whether every statement by a General Authority must be explicitly and unconditionally obeyed.
I recognize that there are varying opinions, but I think it a stretch to say that Mormonism is not dogmatic. I suppose if dogmatism means a creed or statement of core beliefs, then perhaps there is some strange interpretation that Mormonism is not dogmatic. But even then, what is the temple recommend interview if not a statement of core beliefs/expectations?From Wikipedia: “Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.”
There are multiple colloquial interpretations of the word, and in the sense of an official set of doctrine, written down, it is correct, but I would hazard that very few Mormons would agree that there is no official doctrine. We absolutely have core doctrines and beliefs, that are not to be disputed if one wants to remain a member in good standing.
The reason I bring this up is not to contest his statement in a negative way, but to say that it is misleading. Now Buddhism might have a shot at being categorized as “not dogmatic” but not Mormonism. I think a better approach would be to just cut that first sentence, and state that we have no official doctrinal creed (although even this is somewhat misleading in light of the temple recommend questions).
All good points Euhemerus. I went back and forth with Don a lot. He seems to have a perfectionist streak in his personality (which I can thoroughly understand), and wanted things to be certain ways. He changed back a lot of my edits. The overall tone is much more “TBM” in a lot of ways than I would have liked, had I no restrictions. In the end, I let go and let it be Don’s work. This is his article and I am just an editor. I want it to be him shining through, and let him have his voice in the piece.
Actually, If there’s some juicy points like that in the article, ones open for debate and discussion, it will encourage response from the readers.
I can tell you what Don would probably say about the Temple Recommend questions as dogma. He would say those are not canonized, so they are not official doctrine, and thus not dogmatic. It’s a stretch, because Mormonism does have dogma, but our dogma is like good ‘ole fashioned greased pig contest. Which of us farmers can really grab a hold of it without it slipping right out of our hands?
I see. Fair enough. Anyway, I’m not sure who Don is? Where do I comment or start a discussion with him over it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.