The Truth!
A pilgrimage of mind and spiritTuesday, November 23, 2004
Why!
Shem posted a very long response to Chad Phares article which I think is great. I agree with prety much all he said. I suggest to everyone that they read his response. I am going to make it a post on my blog soon, so check back soon.
Why did this article strike a chord with me? Well here are just a few reasons.
Chad uses the term "official church doctrine" in his article. When you hear someone asking if something is "official church doctrine" one of two things is going on with this person. Either they are not sure about what is being taught, or they disagree and refuse to believe what is being taught. When someone plays this card, they are throwing up a smoke screen for what they really think, they are afraid to say, "I think that this is wrong," or ," I am not sure about what you are teaching?".
There are really only two kinds of Doctrine, true and false. Either what is being said , not matter who is saying it, is true or false with regards to Doctrine. Whether Elder Holland, or sister Jones is saying it, if it is true their can be no further arguement. It is doctrine.
Another thing that set me off was that when he said that it is not possible for someone to write edifying things regarding the book of Mormon or anything else that can uplift another person. I personally will someday write a collection of essays on the Book of Mormon and will attempt to have it publshed. This was another thing that set me off because I believe just the opposite. Members have a duty to uplift and teach each other doctrine from the scriputres. Why call a teacher if they cannot uplift?
One last reason that phares is way off is that he assumes that writers of LDS literature, both fiction and non-fiction, are declaring doctrine for the Church in their writings. This is simply not so. A good author will have the gumption to say that they are wholly responsible for what they are writing and that their work does not necessarily reflects the views of the Church. If it does not, read with caution. If the Author fails to do this, Desert book, probably under the auspices of the Chruch prints this in every book that it publishes.
These and many other reasons are why I took issue with Phares in his article and am working on a letter that is now seven singles spaced typed pages long.
It will fully explain why this article has made me a man on a mission.
Stay tuned.
Why did this article strike a chord with me? Well here are just a few reasons.
Chad uses the term "official church doctrine" in his article. When you hear someone asking if something is "official church doctrine" one of two things is going on with this person. Either they are not sure about what is being taught, or they disagree and refuse to believe what is being taught. When someone plays this card, they are throwing up a smoke screen for what they really think, they are afraid to say, "I think that this is wrong," or ," I am not sure about what you are teaching?".
There are really only two kinds of Doctrine, true and false. Either what is being said , not matter who is saying it, is true or false with regards to Doctrine. Whether Elder Holland, or sister Jones is saying it, if it is true their can be no further arguement. It is doctrine.
Another thing that set me off was that when he said that it is not possible for someone to write edifying things regarding the book of Mormon or anything else that can uplift another person. I personally will someday write a collection of essays on the Book of Mormon and will attempt to have it publshed. This was another thing that set me off because I believe just the opposite. Members have a duty to uplift and teach each other doctrine from the scriputres. Why call a teacher if they cannot uplift?
One last reason that phares is way off is that he assumes that writers of LDS literature, both fiction and non-fiction, are declaring doctrine for the Church in their writings. This is simply not so. A good author will have the gumption to say that they are wholly responsible for what they are writing and that their work does not necessarily reflects the views of the Church. If it does not, read with caution. If the Author fails to do this, Desert book, probably under the auspices of the Chruch prints this in every book that it publishes.
These and many other reasons are why I took issue with Phares in his article and am working on a letter that is now seven singles spaced typed pages long.
It will fully explain why this article has made me a man on a mission.
Stay tuned.
posted by Rusch # 11:15 PM 
Archives
10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
