Suspended from MADB for first time! Thread deleted! LOL!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I find it interesting that Mr. BC Space wants to proclaim temple "doctrine" as legitimate Mormon doctrine. According to his own definition of Mormon doctrine, the Mormon temple ceremony and any subsequent changes are not doctrine. Since none of it has followed the codification process, it is just a few mens' opinions.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_truth dancer]

Hi Kam,

For example, I received my endowment prior to 1990 and my wife received hers after 1990, so we wound up with slightly different ideas of what the covenant a wife makes regarding her husband means. I'm no autocrat, in fact I probably go too far in letting my wife do and buy whatever she pleases, but I think the new version of it is a little too vague.

I don't want to derail this thread but, please tell me you are joking!

~td~

[_Trevor]

Mormon "doctrine" doesn't change because there is no such thing as Mormon doctrine. It is a mythical creature, kind of like pink unicorns and equal partnerships where one partner presides.

Don't agree with me? Too bad. Blake Ostler does.

Thanks for sharing that Ms. I think Blake is on the right track there. I like where he is going.

[_solomarineris]

I made a poll about what the core elements of the LDS endowment are that are unchangeable. I had multiple choices to pick like: 1. Procedures for actual ordinances 2. Covenants 3. Signs and Tokens 4. Information and teachings and 5. Requirements for recommends for ordinances. That's pretty much how I remember it. I posted it and went to have dinner at Panda Express with my wife and son. When I got back and decided to check it I was greeted by a message that said I was suspended until Jan. 8.

This is the first time I've been suspended from there. The last time they said it was "a bug" so that doesn't count I guess. It's funny that the "bug" coincided with me accusing juliann of using mod accounts to bully me in a thread she was also posting in with her juliann account. Cinepro caught her accidentally posting as juliann with a mod account and took a screencap before she deleted it. LOL!

Happy New Year, MADB!

Couple years back when I was posting there I'd see your name regularly there and presumed you were one of the "Members in good standing".
Little I know you would be a "Backstabber" by posting such questions.
(Just kidding a little)
Congratulations.

[_Markk]

Hello,

I find it interesting that Mr. BC Space wants to proclaim temple "doctrine" as legitimate Mormon doctrine. According to his own definition of Mormon doctrine, the Mormon temple ceremony and any subsequent changes are not doctrine. Since none of it has followed the codification process, it is just a few mens' opinions.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

But...! An article printed in the Ensign by Sorenson is doctrine...go figure?

Mark

[_Nimrod]

I wonder if the LDS GAs check with the Masons before attempting to make any changes?

[_Nimrod]

Hello,

I find it interesting that Mr. BC Space wants to proclaim temple "doctrine" as legitimate Mormon doctrine. According to his own definition of Mormon doctrine, the Mormon temple ceremony and any subsequent changes are not doctrine. Since none of it has followed the codification process, it is just a few mens' opinions.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

But...! An article printed in the Ensign by Sorenson is doctrine...go figure?

Mark

Yes, Mark, not only must FARMS' Sorenson be a correct reflection that there's no LDS doctrine on the location of Book of Mormon Cumorah because Sorenson's article was published in the Ensign, but...
1-FP Secretary F. Michael Watson must have been mistaken/expressing personal opinion when 6 years later (10/16/1990) and specifying that he was speaking for the Brethren about a long standing Church position that the Book of Mormon Cumorah is in New York
2-President Marion G. Romney was just expressing his personal opinion when at General Conference in 1975 he called upon the Spirit and explained that the Book of Mormon Cumorah is in New York
3-Apostle Mark E. Peterson was just expressing personal opinion in his 1978 Ensign article (unlike the higher ranking FARMS' Sorenson who couldn't have been simply expressing his personal opinions in his 1984 Ensign article)
4-Apostle Talmadge's Articles of Faith treatise can be dismissed because it cannot make doctrine (nevermind it might accurately reflect Church doctrine, particularly given its process of sanction and review by the prophet etc)
5-The Prophet Joseph Smith's explanation of finding the skeleton of Zelph ("The contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms; and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us what a white Lamanite, a large, thickset man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains. The curse was taken from Zelph, or at least, in part--one of his thigh bones was broken by a stong flung from a sling, while in battle, years before his death. He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites." Times and Seasons, vol. 6, January 1, 1846; History of the Church, 1948 ed., vol. 2, pp. 79-80.) cannot have been speaking doctrinally either, not in the face of the 1984 proclamation of FARMS' Sorenson that the Church does not specify the geographical site of Cumorah.

For mopologists, LDS doctrine is nothing more, nothing less than what FARMS tells them it is. The Brethren in SLC have become superfluous now that there is FARMS.

[_harmony]

Hello,

I find it interesting that Mr. BC Space wants to proclaim temple "doctrine" as legitimate Mormon doctrine. According to his own definition of Mormon doctrine, the Mormon temple ceremony and any subsequent changes are not doctrine. Since none of it has followed the codification process, it is just a few mens' opinions.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Now that is an interesting thought, Cam, except that the endowment, at least, is fragmented throughout the scriptures. At least that's what I was told when I expressed this same opinion. I wasn't referred to any specific scriptures for say... the sash, veil, or robe, but I was assured it was there.

[_Alter Idem]

I made a poll about what the core elements of the LDS endowment are that are unchangeable. I had multiple choices to pick like: 1. Procedures for actual ordinances 2. Covenants 3. Signs and Tokens 4. Information and teachings and 5. Requirements for recommends for ordinances. That's pretty much how I remember it. I posted it and went to have dinner at Panda Express with my wife and son. When I got back and decided to check it I was greeted by a message that said I was suspended until Jan. 8.

This is the first time I've been suspended from there. The last time they said it was "a bug" so that doesn't count I guess. It's funny that the "bug" coincided with me accusing juliann of using mod accounts to bully me in a thread she was also posting in with her juliann account. Cinepro caught her accidentally posting as juliann with a mod account and took a screencap before she deleted it. LOL!

Happy New Year, MADB!

Kamenriader, I don't know if the post crossed the line or not, I didn't see it. But I know one thing. If a topic skirts the line it is subject to the guidelines if the poster is not one of the protected class at MADB. in my opinion the protected classes are; The LDS scholars and LDS attack-dog apologists (I don't need to name them I'm sure everyone knows the ones that fit in this category). They can get away with it and the thread would not be closed unless someone started posting things that clearly violated the guidelines...but the topic starter would not be penalized for the breach.

I think they've been more lenient these days though. I think they offer more suspensions and private warnings to violators, possibly because they recognize that the rules are not universally enforced.

Having gone the rounds with you over polygamy on MADB, I know you are on the "Enemies of Juliann" list(:)) so when you post, she takes notice. And what Juliann notices, the other mods notice as well.

I know she's not the only mod, but she's the 'public' face of the mods--and they run the board as she wants it run--no different than here at MD where Shades pointedly tells his mods they are to act as he would--the MADB mods clearly do the same.

It's just the nature of the boards. Personally, when I get tired of the world of MADB or MD, I take a break from posting.

It's better than complaining about things that are out of my control. And probably you understand this--if you just want to vent, that's fine too. This board offers plenty of support if you just want to vent.:)

[_malkie]

Mormon "doctrine" doesn't change because there is no such thing as Mormon doctrine. It is a mythical creature, kind of like pink unicorns and equal partnerships where one partner presides.

Don't agree with me? Too bad. Blake Ostler does.

Mormon beliefs and practices have changed. The things that have been taught and emphasized by top church leaders have changed. That is all that matters to me.

On the "other" board:

There is no book/text that is official teaching other than the scriptures. They contain official teachings."

I have asked for further information on this point:

Could you please clarify this statement - do the scriptures contain all of the official teachings of the church?"

by the way, concerning "equal partnerships where one partner presides", why is it that the non-presiding partner often seems to run things? (;=)