Simplicity spares apostasy

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

I do?

Ok, then I guess not. You tell me what you meant then.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Ok, then I guess not. You tell me what you meant then.

Why don't you just say what you think about the quote, eh? I'm not sure why you are thinking there has to be some hidden subtext.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Apparently, Henry Eyring does. His message is titled "Teaching True Doctrine". Here's another worthy snippet:

My "who" was rhetorical. I read your post and President Eyring's article. I don't think the counsel would serve me well at all. If you think it will serve you well, have at it.

Some of my thinking on this comes from the fact that I don't think President Eyring's teaching here is in accord with the standard works. My allusion to the Garden story is only a small part of my understanding, but nonetheless, JFS's counsel has served me well:

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works" (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203).

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

Why don't you just say what you think about the quote, eh? I'm not sure why you are thinking there has to be some hidden subtext.

I did say what I thought about it. Why can't you?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I did say what I thought about it. Why can't you?

You went back and modified your original post after I read it.

Obviously I agree with Elder Eyring. We get precious few minutes of formal teaching each week, and it ought to be spent teaching the fundamentals rather than digressing into speculation and hypothesis.

This is especially true in a church that is adding 300,000 new fledging testimonies a year, though I think there are plenty of long-time members who still struggle with the basics.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Some of my thinking on this comes from the fact that I don't think President Eyring's teaching here is in accord with the standard works.

That's quite a bold assertion there.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

That's quite a bold assertion there.

No doubt it is--from your perspective.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

No doubt it is--from your perspective.

Mmm, not only mine.

Alleging that a First Presidency member is teaching doctrine out of harmony with the scriptures in the church's signature publication is a fairly bold thing to say. Not sure how you think it's not.

[MikeWaters]

Is the church more worried about a 35 year old housewife hearing non-simple doctrine, or the disaster that is the current curriculum that makes many members 1) not attend or 2) dread and resent attendance?

I suspect they are more worried about non-simple doctrine being taught.

What gets kicked up the line to the GAs? The problem cases. The apostasties and excommunications that have been appealed.

Who kicks up, "Elder, half of our ward does not attend Sunday School, what should we do?" Doesn't happen.

Thankfully I have found a church-proscribed way to not go to Sunday School.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Who kicks up, "Elder, half of our ward does not attend Sunday School, what should we do?" Doesn't happen.

Oh, I guarantee this happens.