I enjoyed your thread at MAD, and have enjoyed all your threads there in fact.
Am I reading something into the closure of this last thread by Skylla that isn't actually there? Her comments did have the feel that you are no longer to start threads about any of the subject matter for your upcoming lessons?
I don't think so. Here's the quote:
Consiglieri:
Please rephrase these type of threads to exclude the personal spin you put on them. It invites criticism towards you rather than a discussion of the topic.
Skylla
I think Skylla was referring to some complaints about Consig's use of the term 'false doctrine'--this was the 'personal spin' I believe. I don't believe there's any problem with his starting threads-just not try to 'push buttons' with the topic headings he sometimes uses to generate interest. At least that's how I read it.
Every man is a moon and has a [dark] side which he turns toward nobody; you have to slip around behind if you want to see it. ---Mark Twain
While I didn't post on the MAD thread, I don't see any false doctrine there. Scripturally the Father has only appeared to introduce the son. The son is suppose to be the mediator between God the father and fallen man. It is part of the son's responsibility to speak as he were God the father, as a mediator, because man is separated and only reconciled to the Father through the son's atonement. Thus, you will only ever see the father appear if he is introducing the son and thereafter the son speaks directly in his behalf as if he was the Father himself. The Bible has numerous instances of this as well as the first vision. When man is fully reconciled to the father, Christ will make his calling and election sure and introduce one to God the father as God the father introduced Christ to man. So I see it being perfectly consistent with the investiture of divine authority.
I enjoyed your thread at MAD, and have enjoyed all your threads there in fact.
Am I reading something into the closure of this last thread by Skylla that isn't actually there? Her comments did have the feel that you are no longer to start threads about any of the subject matter for your upcoming lessons?
I don't think so. Here's the quote:
Consiglieri:
Please rephrase these type of threads to exclude the personal spin you put on them. It invites criticism towards you rather than a discussion of the topic.
Skylla
I think Skylla was referring to some complaints about Consig's use of the term 'false doctrine'--this was the 'personal spin' I believe. I don't believe there's any problem with his starting threads-just not try to 'push buttons' with the topic headings he sometimes uses to generate interest. At least that's how I read it.
There is a chance I'm wrong, but I swear I read a different mod comment that was similar to your above citation. I think Skyla made an uncited edit.
Consig, was this Skylla's original comment?
I don't expect to see same-sex marriage in Utah within my lifetime. - Scott Lloyd, Oct 23 2013
My first calling was to be a teacher in Primary. (Little did I know that all converts are sent to Primary as a first calling, apparently). The very first lesson plan in the teacher's manual included the explanation that as the Bible is imperfect we need the Book of Mormon (paraphrase). I was floored as this is hardly the prevailing wisdom taught by the missionaries. (Book of Mormon adds to all the rest, not supplants it, supposedly). It was a big problem for me, wanting to do a good job, accepting the responsibility of teaching Mormon children Mormon concepts, but not able, due to my pre-mo religious beliefs, to concede or to teach that the Bible contained errors (coming from a "Bible-believing" EV background that had taught me "the Bible is inerrant" and I had accepted that).
I truly did not know what to do as I could not see myself failing to teach the lesson completely or teaching Mormon children something apart from their church's dogma but also could not bring myself to teach an idea that was so far outside my own beliefs. Indeed, it could be said to be foundational to me as an EV and not open to equivocation or denial.
My Mormon friend, who had been instrumental in getting me baptized, advised me that a teacher doesn't have to teach every single element of a lesson. There is more material in each lesson, she said, than you can possibly cover in one class so you can take the parts you want to focus on and leave any problematic areas alone.
I thought that was a strange way of approaching one's own church's doctrine but I took the advice to skip over the "inerrant or not" problem in this instance and focused on the Book of Mormon, leaving out comparison to the Bible or any idea that "the Book of Mormon is better" or "more true".
I wonder if such an approach would work in the case of your Jehovah/Jesus/Father conundrum, consiglieri?
Skipping over it might get you over that snag in this particular lesson. Then I guess you have to find a way to reconcile a discrepancy that you see there. For some, one discrepancy piles up on top of others until their perspective alters and they see new slants on things. This is never a bad thing. Different perspectives are positive, in my view.
This doesn't get you past the part about that particular idea being given more emphasis in the teacher's guide though. Why, I wonder, would they object to you questioning a point that you're uncomfortable about? If the teacher is confused, the poor students...
As I'm sure you were told this comes from the declaration by Joseph Fielding Smith that the Father has never directly interacted with man since the Fall except in rare occurrences where he only testified of his Son. Everything else is the Son or his servants speaking, often as if they are the Father or the Son as needed. If the Son can speak as if he is the Father then there is no problem.
The manual thinks it's important because the manual accepts the witness of a Prophet that it is so.
"In all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state [see John 5:43; 10:25, 30; 14:28; 17:11, 22; 3 Nephi 20:35; 3 Nephi 28:10; D&C 50:43]. Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father." -Joseph F. Smith
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Joseph F Smith. 'Nuff said. The man beat his wife.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Joseph F Smith. 'Nuff said. The man beat his wife.
Harms, if he did beat his wife I am sure it was while he was a man and not a prophet of god.
If he did it while a prophet of god I am sure god condoned it, probably some test for him like "prove your love of your god by beating your wife" or some crap like that..
New name: Boaz The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
Joseph F Smith. 'Nuff said. The man beat his wife.
Oh please.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
I think your thread on MADB illustrates an important point. We often accuse evangelicals of Bibliolotry. Yet, it seems that we hold our correlated manuals up in a similar way.
I think your thread on MADB illustrates an important point. We often accuse evangelicals of Bibliolotry. Yet, it seems that we hold our correlated manuals up in a similar way.
Do we worship the correlation committee?? :)
Seth
ACK! (where's the smilie that's washing out it's brain?)
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.