Nauvoo
Nauvoo
Nauvoo     Home Page  |  Nauvoo Times  |  About Nauvoo  |  The Back Bench  |  Vigor - Web Edition  |  Contact Nauvoo
Nauvoo Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Nauvoo Forum » Nauvoo Classic Forum » General Discussions » Curse words in print. (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: Curse words in print.
Sweet William
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for Sweet William   Email Sweet William         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
...if only one side thinks something is funny, is it still funny?
If I'm telling the joke, fer sure. I even supply all necessary laughter for my own jokes. I'm kind of service-minded that way.
Posts: 8615 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LizardWizard
Member
Member # 577

 - posted      Profile for LizardWizard           Edit/Delete Post 
It wasn't like I was going for belly laughs or guffaws. I just thought a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment might be well received. It is true that Pres. Monson misidentified a snake and misquoted The Voice in conference. Although I rolled my eyes when he said it, it really isn't that big of a deal.

However, other more significant issues have already been mentioned here. We're supposed to seek confirmation of the spirit for anything we're taught. General conference proceedings are worthy of our serious attention, but they aren't in the canon unless they go through the established procedure for canonization. Over the decades, there have been some real whoppers in conference. But that shouldn't give us the slightest concern since there should be no expectation of infallibility.

Posts: 1285 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyByNight
Member
Member # 1073

 - posted      Profile for FlyByNight   Email FlyByNight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
but they aren't in the canon unless they go through the established procedure for canonization.
Here, you've introduced yet a third term, canon.

So, now we have scripture, doctrine. and canon.

Which gets back to my earlier question about what are they? I've said my definition doctrine.

I'm also going to say that doctrine is not the same as scripture, nor is it canon. Scripture may be equal to canon, but, I haven't really investigated the difference.

It does no good to talk about something until it is defined and the definition is agreed upon. But, then again that would be typical of a discussion here at Nauvoo.

They're red, thin skinned and have a white flesh.

No, They're orange colored, have thick skin, and the flesh is sectioned into orange colored wedges.

What are you two talking about?

In unison: "The same thing"

Posts: 11091 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scruffydog
Member
Member # 10650

 - posted      Profile for scruffydog   Email scruffydog         Edit/Delete Post 
I recently read an old Ensign article where the writer was talking about Conference talks, and they said explicitly that the talks were the result of individuals pondering and praying, and that the individuals were attempting to interpret the will of the Lord. Mostly, they get it right but not always 100%. We shouldn't be surprised if some mistakes are made, because everyone speaking is an untranslated being. However, we can be sure that any mistakes that are in any way important will be corrected in the Ensign publication.

Who'd have thought that mistakes can be made because they can be corrected? Almost like being a human being....

[ December 06, 2011, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: scruffydog ]

Posts: 1682 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyByNight
Member
Member # 1073

 - posted      Profile for FlyByNight   Email FlyByNight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
However, we can be sure that any mistakes that are in any way important will be corrected in the Ensign publication.
Something I've said from the beginning.
Posts: 11091 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rayb
Member
Member # 122

 - posted      Profile for rayb   Email rayb         Edit/Delete Post 
Canon is a catholic concept, and generally is misapplied in the strictest sense by most LDS..
Posts: 13784 | Registered: Oct 98  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jlm
Member
Member # 1843

 - posted      Profile for jlm   Email jlm         Edit/Delete Post 
I think think that what technically classifies as LDS canon could be the 4 standard works.

LDS scripture includes the canon plus some official written statements by the president of the church, e.g. 1st presidency message in the Ensign.

LDS doctrine is the set of commonly held and taught beliefs from which church governance and behavioral recommendations are based.

All three of which have changed, evolved, been added to and taken from over time. Therefore, no canon, scripture or doctrine is sacrosanct and must be met with at least some measure doubt.

Posts: 1526 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyByNight
Member
Member # 1073

 - posted      Profile for FlyByNight   Email FlyByNight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
must be met with at least some measure doubt.
Are you quite sure that's the correct phrase? After all, a person quite validly might say, because the rules may change tomorrow, I can kill George today. Am I incorrect in saying that what we are taught today is what we are supposed to do today? After all, used to be that we were supposed to keep more than a years supply of certain things. Would it have been valid for those people at that time to only keep a supply that would have met today's standard?

[ December 06, 2011, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: FlyByNight ]

Posts: 11091 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Taalcon
Member
Member # 10838

 - posted      Profile for Taalcon   Email Taalcon         Edit/Delete Post 
"Therefore, no canon, scripture or doctrine is sacrosanct and must be met with at least some measure doubt."

As to how I see things, I would replace "doubt" with "open-mindedness", or even 'allowances'.

I allow that Prophets, seers, and revelators don't know all things, haven't seen all things, and haven't had all things revealed to them.

Cultural assumptions will be used as part of the language used to express the core inspired or divinely imparted message. And sometimes, cultural assumptions are wrong.

To paraphrase and somewhat re-cast the Practice of Henry Eyring, there are times where someone is giving a talk where the details are getting in the way for me, and I try to determine what the core message they are actually trying to get across is, and then give myself a sermon on that topic, giving the speaker a full aknowledgement, knowing that my mind has been turned to that subject by the inspiration of the assigned speaker.

The mechanics can often get in the way of the message. Which is often why I tend to feel the least effective messages are those that tend to focus on theologizing mechanics, rather than the message.

For Example, I feel far more edified and taught concerning the Doctrine of Christ as I read Elder Nelson's autobiography and learn of the choices, decisions, and sacrifices he made than reading his article in this month's Ensign taking pains to express his opinion that D&C 20:1 has something to do with God verbally telling us the day, month, and year of Jesus' birth, or his talk in Africa last month where he once again shared his thoughts that (his understanding of) Organic Evolution and the Big Bang theory were nonsensical to him.

Because I'm familiar with his life, and <i>practical teachings</i>, I do not hesitate one bit to respect him and view him as a true Apostle and Disciple of Jesus Christ. In addition, I have powerful respect for his opinions and suggestions concerning cardiology - I have a friend who is alive today due to a surgical method that Elder Nelson pioneered back in the day.

That being said, and being quite familiar with Elder Benson's Fourteen Fundamentals, I give Elder Nelson leeway and allowance when he shares his opinions on elements on which he does not have an expertise. I do not expect perfection, and do not view him as any less an inspired Apostle, or gifted and knowledgeable Heart Surgeon. I do not feel required to view those opinions on textual history, astrophysics, or biology as the Mind and Will of the Lord.

However, when Elder Nelson notes he feels inspired to ask us as members of the Lord's Church to pursue a particular course of <i>action</i>, I also recognize that there's a very good chance that I should pay very close attention, and follow through, whether or not the given justification or explanation for the said action ends up being the correct, or even logical reason for having done so.

It's my experience that the Lord often makes known a desired course of action, and then leaves us to figure out the why -- and at times is okay with us - for the time being - being left with an incorrect understanding of the why of what we're it.

[ December 06, 2011, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]

Posts: 1263 | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoudmouthMormon
Member
Member # 6140

 - posted      Profile for LoudmouthMormon   Email LoudmouthMormon         Edit/Delete Post 
Here's one for all y'all:

My Patriarch said a phrase in my patriarchical blessing, that didn't make it into the transcript version. Omitting the phrase substantially changed the guidance. (At least, from my current mortal perspective of what that portion of the blessing means, it would seem to be that way.)

Put that doctrine in your scripture cannon and see how far it flies.

Posts: 2633 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LizardWizard
Member
Member # 577

 - posted      Profile for LizardWizard           Edit/Delete Post 
If canon is a only a Catholic concept, it sure comes up a lot on lds.org.

As I see it, scripture can be used in a narrow sense, referring only to the the canonized standard works, or it can be used in a broad sense, referring to any words inspired by the spirit, no matter to whom given. (See the section entitled "Scriptures: Authority of Scripture" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.)

When we speak of the prophet's words being scripture, it does not mean that they are of equivalent force and authority with the canon. The prophet's words do not qualify as scripture in the restricted sense unless canonized by common consent. And the prophet's words qualify as scripture even in the general sense only when moved upon by the spirit. We might presume that things spoken in general conference are often inspired by the spirit, but we do not confer ex cathedra infallibility on the conference reports. That would be a Catholic concept, and even the Pope speaks ex cathedra only very rarely.

[ December 06, 2011, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: LizardWizard ]

Posts: 1285 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
trooperswife
Member
Member # 670

 - posted      Profile for trooperswife   Email trooperswife         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
My Patriarch said a phrase in my patriarchical blessing, that didn't make it into the transcript version. Omitting the phrase substantially changed the guidance. (At least, from my current mortal perspective of what that portion of the blessing means, it would seem to be that way.)


I've been at the giving of 4 blessings, and each time the Patriarch specifically said that he might change words and phrases in the blessing as he transcribed it. He said he would do it as guided by the spirit, and that no blessings would be denied based on any changes, it was simply to make the blessing flow better and state better what he felt should be stated.

I had a line taken out of my blessing that I had remembered very clearly. The blessing was still given...I still received it, it just wasn't spelled out in the blessing anymore.

Posts: 4453 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jlm
Member
Member # 1843

 - posted      Profile for jlm   Email jlm         Edit/Delete Post 
OK. So maybe "doubt" is a bit of a loaded word with respect to religious belief. Perhaps "skeptecism" might be more appropriate.

quote:
For Example, I feel far more edified and taught concerning the Doctrine of Christ as I read Elder Nelson's autobiography and learn of the choices, decisions, and sacrifices he made than reading his article in this month's Ensign taking pains to express his opinion that D&C 20:1 has something to do with God verbally telling us the day, month, and year of Jesus' birth, or his talk in Africa last month where he once again shared his thoughts that (his understanding of) Organic Evolution and the Big Bang theory were nonsensical to him.
I find it somewhat disheartening when those who are supposed to be God's chosen bearers of truth and light so willingly bury their head in the sand over anything that may not agree with their childhood learned paradigm. I like Elder Nelson. I think he is a kindhearted, caring man who is trying to serve others. However, with his recurring, blatent advocation of certain falsehoods, he loses some credibility in my eyes.

I personally don't agree with the current, unwritten rule that GA's never contradict each other. It gives the more brazen GA's liscense to promote their own personal scripture mingled philosophies, without any checks from their more cautious, humble collegues. Organizations can and do flourish, even when this is strong, vocal disagreement amongst the leadership. True spiritual unity is not the mere outward appearance of solidarity, but rather working together in harmony, inspite of differences of opinion, to achieve a common goal.

Anyway, getting off of my soapbox now.

Posts: 1526 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyByNight
Member
Member # 1073

 - posted      Profile for FlyByNight   Email FlyByNight         Edit/Delete Post 
On the other hand, I think it is equally wrong to say a GA is wrong (However, with his recurring, blatent advocation of certain falsehoods) when personal opinions clash.

On this matter, at this point in time, all we can say for sure is that: The GA might be right, you might be right, or some combination of the two opinions may be right.

Posts: 11091 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yungmom
Member
Member # 619

 - posted      Profile for yungmom   Email yungmom         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
True spiritual unity is not the mere outward appearance of solidarity, but rather working together in harmony, inspite of differences of opinion, to achieve a common goal.
There is a man in our ward that works for the church in the scripture department. He is also one of our Sunday School teachers. I find what he has to say of great comfort. He has told us that the general authorities do not always agree with each other, but he has seen them work things out through study and prayer till they feel they are in line with the Lord together. That shows me that receiving revelation, even personal revelation is not always easy, but if we keep with it then we can be in line with the Lord. It shows me that when I disagree with someone, especially my spouse, over something that needs to be done we can come to do together as the Lord wants. It shows me that it takes work to follow the Lord and we just can't be lazy about what we are learning. And so much more...

So I think they must work far more together in harmony, like you say, than we may perceive if we don't see them going through the process.

Posts: 5575 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator


 
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Nauvoo Home Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.6.0