Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
mormonheretic wrote:
Wayfarer and Thoreau, do you still feel this is too negative?
Roy, yes I think Origins of Power is probably the best treatment of the Succession Crisis, though Quinn also has some other excellent articles from the 1980’s that are excellent as well. John Hamer did an interview and discussed the succession crisis, and he had some interesting points as well.
No. Your explanation cleared things up quite well. Thank you. I will have to keep those other works in mind and read them when I get a chance.
I think your list leans towards the negative side. You could include some positive too. Westward expansion
Colonization
Welfare
Family and values
I’ve been away for a few days and I have’t read the entire thread, especially in detail. I do want to make some points that might have already been made. Baptism is an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance. It does not require a temple recommend which implies it does not require temple worthiness.
Go look at chapter 20 in handbook 2. It’s on the Church website and is available to all. You don’t need an account. You can find the handbook under serving in the church.
Ray, That would be great. Something else that would be really great is discussion of Chapter 17: Uniformity and Adaptation.
Old-Timer wrote:I know this will appear to be parsing of the worst kind by some people here, but there is a HUGE difference in my mind between “garments should not touch the ground” (the question asked here) and “garments should be kept off the floor” (from the CHI linked in Thoreau’s comment – and thanks for the link, btw, since I completely forgot the CHI is available online now).
I wouldn’t think of leaving my garments lying around on the floor, but I have no problem with them touching the ground – even as I wish this particular “should” was not in the CHI. I get the respect factor in not “keeping them on the floor” – but I also get the interpretation that says, therefore, they never should touch the floor. It’s hard to condemn people who take the latter meaning from that statement.
“Treat the garment with respect” is good enough for me – and the current “should” probably happened because some member complained to some leader about her husband tossing his garments on the floor along with the rest of his dirty clothing. *sigh*
Ray,’
Just wondering. Ground versus floor, what do you see as the difference in intent. Or, how do you parse the difference?
A few thoughts. I’m short and overweight, therefor I wear large shirts to fit around my girth. The marks in my undershirts are not were described in the endowment. Some of the garment lines on men that are more overweight than I am are way below the knee. Those marks can’t be in the right place either.
Women can wear some real cleavage revealing clothing while wearing garments properly.
We are so afraid of legs, midrifffs, and shoulders. I’m almost surprised we don’t dress in clothing that covers everything between foot and neck with sleeves to the wrists.
Garments are underwear. They touch and collect some pretty nasty stuff. What is the big deal about them being on the floor with the rest of the dirty clothes? I understand not walking them but . . . .
Heber13 wrote:I think its pretty easy to order new ones that fit right, without having to alter them.
I think sometimes I wonder why non-mormons make such a to-do about “magic underwear”…but then I remember we make it a big deal in the church, so that’s probably why.
Does anyone know…is it actually in the handbook that they are not supposed to touch the ground?
Yes, they are not to touch the floor. CHI 2 is available to all, even non-members.
jamison wrote:Yes, but there is a prophecy by Joseph Smith that is recorded by church historian B.H. Roberts many years later. Roberts’ essay on this point is published in front of one of the seven volumes of church history. Joseph Smith essentially prophesied that the state of Missouri would be a bloodbath and that those who persecuted the saints would have the same happen to them ten fold or a hundred fold. I don’t remember the exact quote.
This prophecy was realized during the US Civil War 1861-1865. The worst and most brutal carnage and destruction; the result of severe guerrilla warfare was waged in the state of Missouri.So, I don’t really dwell on the extermination order, knowing that vengeance is the Lord’s, and he took care of it just as the Prophet Joseph Smith prophesied. Nevertheless, it was a terrible episode in the church’s history from the insider’s perspective. I often see or hear this “fullfillment” of prophecy but I wonder how valid it is. Is it quantifiable? I think the people of Georgia might also disagree with it.
Some of it is tradition and some of it is policy. Small units like branches or small wards look a lot different in how things are done than the big Utah wards. Older elders are often put with the high priests group. The high priests group is also responsible for the prospective elders but the PEs are often put with the elders. Having the high priests responsible for the missionary work sounds good because they have the time if they are retired but they often don’t have the energy because of their age.
I’ve often heard it said that high priest is an administrative calling. Being a high priest does not give one any more authority than being an elder. It’s all in the calling, not the priesthood office held.
Would it be less confusing if we asked the question, “what is false doctrine?” I doubt it. From my first days in the Chruch the “doctrine” discussed in the article is what was taught. It is still taught, see
Gospel PrinciplesChapter 47. The article in the Ensignimplies it is doctrine despite the disclaimer. Many members consider the Ensignscripture so that makes it doctrine in their eyes. More than one President of the Church has declared it. But when you consider what President Hinkley said and what the 14 Fundamentals say maybe it isn’t doctrine. I’m not sure what constitutes doctrine or what definition to use. As much as I like the essay I wouldn’t necessarily agree with all it says nor do I agree with the statement from Gerald Lund.
Just call me confused.
