« Bloom on Mormonism | Main | Oral Arguments on Newdow »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks for the trackback! And I really like your development here on this topic. I wonder though how your view fits historically with our Church's views on involvement in politics. I don't think that it's as clean a separation as you'd like.

So.... we're not "Marching to a Different Beat" anymore?

I have noticed unusually interesting and engaging discussions going on lately at BCC. You have earned your name back.

Good to hear it!

Wait a minute... so our discussions aren't usually interesting or engaging?? You're a tough customer, Dave. You'll see, BCC has some great posts ahead -- I'm really excited for our little band.

I've also enjoyed your blog a great deal. I thought your review of Bloom was well-done and entertaining.

Why I like Dave's blog: because I can read about Mormonism without shouting silently "It's a lie! It's all a lie!"

Thank you, Ann. I'm glad my blog is filling a gap in the market.

I was just reading a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith, and it has me slightly confused. I was having problems with things certain prophets said that directly contradicted other prophets specifically the Adam-God doctrine. The quote basically said that when a prophet teaches, you should measure it against canonized scripture. If there is a change i.e polygamy or african-americans and the priesthood, it is brought before the church and canonized. The reason I am now confused is the word of wisdom, in the scriptures, it is not by way of commandment, but a recommendation, so when people now say it is, it should be brought before the church and canonized as such. Otherwise it's nothing more than a tradition like the Adam-God doctrine apparently was a century and a half-ago. Any thoughts? Or if anyone can show me it was canonized, that would help too

Jarrod. The Word of Wisdom, as commonly discussed now, it more a set of guidelines Heber J. Grant instituted. While connected to D&C 89, it isn't exactly the same thing but is more about addictive substances.

I'd also say that by comparing doctrine to the scriptures, that is more to see about contradictions. I don't think there is a contradiction here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Now Reading

General Books 09-12

General Books 06-08

General Books 04-05

About This Site

Mormon Books 2015-16

Mormon Books 2013-14

Science Books

Bible Books

Mormon Books 2012

Mormon Books 2009-11

Mormon Books 2008

Mormon Books 2007

Mormon Books 2006

Mormon Books 2005

Religion Books 09-12

Religion Books 2008

Religion Books 2004-07

DMI on Facebook

Blog powered by Typepad