Month: August 2008

So this morning, I commented to a co-worker that managers should be less interested in obeisance and kowtowing from their charges, and more interested in listening and coordinating.

“That’s right,” says Dave, “they should just stop, collaborate, and listen“.

My account has gotten 20 or so “Status Undeliverable” emails in the last 3 hours.. saying “Sorry, your email did not get through.” – from all sorts of places.

Is my account sending out emails to others? And how do I stop this?

Eek!!

OH.. and while it lasts.. (completely unrelated) It will be yanked down soon, but click below for 4 minutes of the unaired pilot for BUFFY – The Animated Series.

You know, I remember as a kid that I used to be bored on Saturdays. As an adult, my entire Saturday is booked a week in advance, and virtually nothing for me personally.

Not whinin’, just remarking.

I’ve been involved in a few discussions online lately, wherein I found myself in the odd position of attempting to explain actual Latter-day Saint doctrine to a member of the LDS church who refused to believe me, the scriptures, historical leaders, or affirmations by present leaders.

The topic in question this time was Creationism. The LDS position is that there was no death in the world before the Fall of mankind, the Fall brought about physical (and spiritual death), and the Atonement can return mankind to the exalted state in which he existed prior to the Fall. You would find very few Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society classes in which that doctrine would be disputed.

However, such a doctrine, at the very least, precludes abiogenetic evolution of humankind, and possibly animals. Periodically, LDS leaders have reaffirmed the Divine creation of mankind in a way that precludes the “theory” of evolution. Right around every ten years since 1909 they’ve released another statement that they have no opposition to “true” science, but where a scientific theory appears to contradict revelation from God, one should trust the revelation over the flawed scientific theory.

Online LDS apologists cannot be convinced of this fact of LDS doctrine that would be readily affirmed in any classroom in LDS meetinghouses on a Sunday, and which has the repeated endorsement of the highest leaders of their church. The apologists would have one believe these statements don’t actually mean what they clearly state. While doing some hunting for some way to reason with the unreasonable, I came across a wonderful clarification from a fellow named “Cinepro” that helpfully nailed down the definition of “doctrine” according to online LDS apologists.

(From http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=22 )

• You are bound to believe the things required by the temple recommend questions (if you want to go to the temple).
• You cannot public disagree with any doctrine held by a current apostle.

• New “doctrines” do not have to be reconcilable to old “doctrines”.
• Old doctrines taught by apostles that have not be renounced or contradicted by later apostles may well have expired without further action.
• There is an “unwritten order of things” both doctrinal and procedural that you may be held to.
• The current brethren may be “speaking as men” but you can take no action on this fact. This only applies to dead apostles.
• The scriptures are not necessarily a doctrinal bind since non scriptural commentary on the scriptures by later brethren my change or obsolete the scripture.

Nailed it!