Mormon Doctrine alive and well

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

You don't really like that "music" do you? It drives the spirit away almost as certainly as Tex, or as BRM pontificating on things of which he knows not.

Actually, no, not really.

A friend took me to a Mike Mc concert in Orem years ago. He asked everyone to stand up and sing that We can be together forever song. I passed. I also remember the tickets being prohibitively expensive.

I will admit to those songs, and others like them, still bring up memories of past times at BYU and elsewhere. Even a bad Afterglow tune brings back some memories.

I don't get the negativity surrounding Bruce Red. Some people speak pretty boldly against a former Apostle, which is a fairly bold thing to do, I guess.

[TripletDaddy]

Never mind. You revisionist historied your post, most likely thinking the better of what you stated. Or at least how you stated it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

More properly worded? What Arch has mentioned and what you are suggesting are completely distinct.

And now you're going to guess about intent? Hilarious.

And you've called into question the idea that "mullahs" even exist.

And you're contempt is nauseating.

Talk about a bad show. What you've done is 4th rate trolling.

Cheer up, grumpy. It's a beautiful evening.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Let he who studies the scriptures learn that the passage you referenced is almost certainly a later addition.

Maybe, maybe not.

Curiousity question: when a passage that you see as of questionable authenticity is reiterated multiple times by modern prophets, does that change the calculus for you, or not?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

You don't really like that "music" do you? It drives the spirit away almost as certainly as does Tex.

What a marvelously mullahish thing to say! They DO exist!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

A friend took me to a Mike Mc concert in Orem years ago. He asked everyone to stand up and sing that We can be together forever song. I passed.

LOL. Oh man, that sing-a-long at the end was just awful. My wife took me to the show a few years back. I knew nothing about it. We got extra tickets and invited some friends. I still feel terrible about that, but my buddy seems to have forgiven me. He's a good man.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

LOL. Oh man, that sing-a-long at the end was just awful. My wife took me to the show a few years back. I knew nothing about it. We got extra tickets and invited some friends. I still feel terrible about that, but my buddy seems to have forgiven me. He's a good man.

Your friend is strong.

Conversely, I wound up breaking up with the girl who took me to Michael Mc.

The last straw was a Kurt Bestor show we went to at Abravenal Hall....she bought me the CD for Christmas. We stopped dating a few weeks later.

The shocking thing about the sing along is that there is no forewarning about it. Perhaps I was too distracted by all the mass merchandising of overpriced memorabilia in the lobby.

[FMCoug]

So I just caught up on this thread. To me this is the funniest part of the entire thread.

Originally Posted by Tex

... who said it was EQ?

All hail Tex the mighty High Priest! LOL.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

Cheer up, grumpy. It's a beautiful evening.



Maybe, maybe not.

Curiousity question: when a passage that you see as of questionable authenticity is reiterated multiple times by modern prophets, does that change the calculus for you, or not?

Not really. That scribe who entered it in hundreds of years later may have been inspired, who knows. Don't be afraid of history. We already know there were passages altered or taken out or added later. Plenty of prophets and apostles have referenced fictional works like Les Miserables and others to teach a principle. Even if the actual story wasn't in the original doesn't mean there is nothing to be learned from it. Does it bother you that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all separate accounts of the life of the Savior but in some areas contradict each other? That might be a problem for someone who believes in Biblical inerrancy, but shouldn't be for an LDS person.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Not really. That scribe who entered it in hundreds of years later may have been inspired, who knows. Don't be afraid of history. We already know there were passages altered or taken out or added later. Plenty of prophets and apostles have referenced fictional works like Les Miserables and others to teach a principle. Even if the actual story wasn't in the original doesn't mean there is nothing to be learned from it. Does it bother you that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all separate accounts of the life of the Savior but in some areas contradict each other? That might be a problem for someone who believes in Biblical inerrancy, but shouldn't be for an LDS person.

It would be interesting to apply this principle to the alleged anachronisms of Bruce Red. Maybe he was expressing what was common belief then, although today the common belief has shifted.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

It would be interesting to apply this principle to the alleged anachronisms of Bruce Red. Maybe he was expressing what was common belief then, although today the common belief has shifted.

What it comes down to for me is that if that the belief in scriptural / prohpetic / GA inerrancy is a really tough corner to get out of once one has painted himself into it.

Don't all statements of prophets (be they ancient or modern) need to be viewed through the lens of their times? They ARE human after all.

Dare I be so heretical as to say 50 years from now we may look back on some of the things that GBH or other prophets from "our time" said with a critical eye? Will that change the fact that they are prophets? Of course not.