The minority point of view

When one must be defensive; when one must be combative;
When one must have the only correct point of view, what does that really say about that one person?

Except for the doctrine issues, if one questions certain procedures; questions certain non-doctrine trends; and certain non-doctrine beliefs, does it make that, (question person), a heretic? Does that mean that the (question person) is unworthy of respect?

Is openness bad and close-mindedness good? Is it wrong to question?

Should we all follow, without question, all that we see and hear inside the Church, or have we learned anything from the pre middle 1950’s regarding the War in Heaven?

Personally, I think it is healthy to have open discussions on practices that may not be doctrine.

RU: "Except for the doctrine issues . . .
Arkiecoug: That’s one of the problems Ron, neither you nor I nor anyone posting on this site has the authority to say what is doctrine and what is not. We may have our opinions and may argue those opinions but opinion is not, “thus sayeth the Lord.”

RU: “Is openness bad and close-mindedness good?”
Arkiecoug: One person’s openness may be another person’s close-mindedness.

RU: “Should we all follow, without question, all that we see and hear inside the Church, or have we learned anything from the pre middle 1950’s regarding the War in Heaven?”
Arkiecoug: I have yet to see on this site anyone saying that we should all follow, without question all that we see and hear inside the church. I have been a member of the church for 71 years and have always been told to earnestly pray about what is said in or out of the church. I have never heard of the War in Heaven issue that you throw around several times.

RU: “Personally, I think it is healthy to have open discussions on practices than may not be doctrine.”
Arkiecoug: I agree but the problem with your statement is the word “may” There is not one of us, posting here, who can say with priesthood authority, what is and is not doctrine. Again, we may have opinions and even argue about our opinions, but our opinions are not priesthood authority for saying, “thus sayeth the Lord.” There are several things I don’t like or think not right or think not fair and I have disclosed those things to my stake president and other priesthood leaders but NEVER have I declared my personal beliefs, perceptions, or feelings as anything but my own personal stuff and no one elses. I invite you to do the same.

So don’t get so defensive :joy:

Your years have made you very wise.
Scripture is doctrine. Which ones that we have to follow today is set by Priesthood Authority beginning with the Prophet. The Prophet also sets worldwide policy as well. And we follow studying, meditating and praying all along the way. Not fighting against authority.

RU, It is because we sometimes blindly go along with what is being taucht, assuming that everything we hear is doctrine when in deed, it is just someone’s opinion, that we fall into situations like the no Coke because it was against the word of wisdom, which prevailed until 1956 when we bought into the Coca Cola Company.

Also the “War in Heave issue, where the blacks were the fence sitters that would not accept Satins plan, but also would not suppoprt Jesus plan, and thus, those fence sitters were aloud to come to earth and take a body, unlike those that supported Satins plan, but those fence sitters were cursed with the black skin”

This is what we were taught and believed to be doctrine until 1956.

So it is necessary to question if something is doctrine or if it is somebodies opinion.

In the 1940’s, we openly did not like the Catholics or the Masons.
We would state openly that the Catholics were bad because they believed that their Pope was infallible and we said at that time, that nobody was infallible except God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. I’m not sure when we changed our minds on this one.


" I have been a member of the Church for 71 years and I have never heard about the War In Heaven"

Read in DC about the war in heaven. It talks about it, It is doctrine, however, pre 1956 the rest that I stated was added to the doctrine that was later claimed in 1956 was not doctrine but just somebody’s opinion.

I started attending the Church, in 1945. I was 10 years old.

It’s a really bad habit that people have-they love to quote “book writers” and their opinions and then carry it over to doctrine. It’s a really bad habit and shouldn’t really be a part of a BYU athletics forum. This site is becoming a little bit like Facebook-an opportunity for people to vent and annoy others and get their ridiculous notions viewed. Although I am not always in a hundred percent agreement with you, your posts are presented in a logical, well-phrased format and I appreciate the effort you make-arkiecoug is much the same. There is a lot to learn on this site from knowledgeable people that have a inside track into BYU athletics-so that’s a positive and there are others that just like to discuss what they see and what frustrates them, which can be fun also and then there is an occasional dolt. Keep up the good work, Ron and remember there is a considerable difference between doctrine and policy😇

We never said Catholics were bad. We had Apostles like McConkie say the Catholic Church was the Great and Abominable Church because of the large Cathedrals and the infallibility of the Pope and the Church. (From Book of Mormon). But we never attacked individuals including the Pope. President Kimball states that he thought the Pope was a great man and good person. The doctrines are not all correct .

There is an off-topic section for these religious or political thoughts and opinions. However, if you or others don’t want to read them in Football or Basketball then don’t. Skip over them. No need to have a conniption fit over it. Patience and tolerance, right :slight_smile:

What was added? Just curious…

RU: please provide me with any evidence other than your own opinion or what you supposedly heard that the church bought into the Coca Cola Co in 1956. Also please provide any supporting evidence that drinking Coke was ever against the WofW and would keep one from obtaining a temple recommend.

Also, please provide any facts or proof that the LDS church hated Catholics or the Pope at any time in the past. I haven’t seen any evidence of these teachings and you continually refer to them and this black skin war in heaven issue. Facts on that issue too please. It is just really tiresome when someone continuously throws down something that a bishop or stake Pres may have said years ago and there isn’t a shred of church printed material as evidence of a supposed doctrine that supports the statement or opinion. Even some GA 70’s are credited with doctrine making … even McConkie’s statements weren’t considered doctrine at the time. He personally said in many occasions that he was speaking his thoughts and not speaking on behalf of the church. He himself would be the first to say that the only voice for the church is the Savior’s … given through his ordained prophet. People can waste countless hrs arguing over opinions and even claim opinion as doctrine. You appear headed down that path.

Please provide the links or evidence or just keep your opinions to yourself on supposed church policy or doctrine that actually wasn’t.

The War in Heaven theory was just one theory. Blacks being descendants of Cain was a more accepted theory with Ham’s wife as the conduit through the flood. The fact is, we don’t have the reason for keeping Blacks from receiving the Priesthood and out of the Temples. But, we don’t have the reason why only Levites were able to hold the Priesthood from the time of Moses to time of the Savior.

As far as caffeinated drinks and McConkie, that was his opinion. He put that in his books.

And the Catholic Church being the great and abominable church as stated in the Book of Mormon was thought to be the Catholic Church outlines again in McConkie’s books because of the large cathedrals.

I am really not interested in the Myriads of opinions and the possible germination of them. That is like a dog chasing its tail. What I am interested in is anyone who says this or that is/was church doctrine. Ron continues to speak as if he knows that church doctrine was this or that. For years I worked at the largest banking record keeper for stocks and bonds in the country. We would have to research the stockholders of record and provide new certs to buyers/owners of investments. Anything ever traded on the Nasdaq, Chicago or NYSE was under our umbrella. I handled millions of certs and could look up any holders of record. So, I can tell Ron that the Corp of the First Pres and any other main church owned entity didn’t buy into Coca Cola stock in 1956. There were members who gifted such stocks to the church but no outright buying went on. Anyway, even if the church were buying stock or bonds or preferred’s there wouldn’t have been anything wrong with it. Coca Cola owns a lot more than the one soft drink.

Ron’s stmts need to be supported with facts or prefaced with “I believe these things to be true but have no evidence” OR “I heard this was true but can’t independently confirm the facts” but spouting off about things that the church supposedly did, said, believed, or taught as doctrine without any evidence is tiresome and false info. Opinions based on hearsay about church teachings and doctrine is usually garbage.

Like I said “dolt”:smiley:

I would not doubt that people would gift Coca Cola stocks. Also, did the Church invest in mutual funds in 1956? I’ve been in the mutual fund industry for 31 years and do know many funds invest across the spectrum of sectors including soft drinks, alcohol and tobacco. I bet most in here have money in their 401ks and IRAs that has money in going into funds that invest in alcohol and tobacco. Their are funds that have moral and ethical investments and exclude those areas including nuclear and other areas people might not want their money going into. So, maybe in 1956, when their weren’t moral and ethical funds the Church did buy mutual funds with that in it. Just a thought.

Yes usually garbage-best to ignore it-but it will always exist because people want to give official credence to their opinions. Many people wanted to associate Catholicism with “church of the devil” and then the famous Coca Cola stock purchases. It used to be much worse, but today, it is much easier to search and verify.

Ron, no coke imbibing has ever been a church doctrine. I have NEVER, EVER been asked in any and all priesthood interviews from deacon alt the way through the Aaronic Priesthood, when I became an Elder, mission interviews, temple marriage interviews, high priest interviews or any other interviews for church callings - NEVER have I been asked if I drank coke or any other caffeine-laced soft drinks. Might the church had some stock in Coke or Pepsi or Dr. Pepper or whatever cola company at one time or other - possibly true. But at no time was there stock in such great numbers that they had any controlling influence. This is simply an anti-Mormons falsehood that some like to glory in.

Your second assertion above, about spirits in the pre-existence sitting on the fence during the war in heaven and thus earning black skin on earth had NEVER, NEVER been church doctrine. Have there been some apostates teaching this in some locales, perhaps? This is yet another anti-Mormon, false, piece of shtick trotted out from time to time. I NEVER heard this taught, even while living in some of the most racist communities in Tennessee and Mississippi.

Some folks, in and out of the church, are apostate. Some others voice culturally accepted, handed down from generation to generation, ideas about Church teachings that are not doctrine. Those folks never do their due diligence research to find the truth.

Ron, to me, if no one else, the tone and intonation of your church-related posts SEEM to be anti-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If that is true, that is ok, just admit it and we can move on. If that is an untrue understanding, then I am misunderstanding what you actually write and what seems to be between the lines.

If anyone or entity, including the church were to own mutual funds that doesn’t make them an owner of any shares, bonds or preferred issues of publicly traded co’s that are contained in the fund. The holder of record is the fund. In addition there were less than 10 total mutual funds in existence in 1956. The only way an investor in mutual funds knows what the fund owns is to look at the top 10 holdings listed in fund literature on a quarterly basis.

Of course a person who invests in a mutual fund does not own the individual stocks the fund managers have invested in. A person owns shares of the mutual fund. But, nevertheless less, the money a person invests in the fund goes to supporting the individual companies and some people don’t want any of their money invested in sinful companies that make sinful products like alcohol and tobacco. The average fund is being invested in 150 companies when it is a stock equity fund. Some have 50 while others 300.
With respect to cafinated drinks, since it’s not ansin to drink a coke it wouldn’t be a sin to invest in Coca Cola either. So, even if the Church did, so what.