{"id":556,"date":"2006-03-16T11:41:10","date_gmt":"2006-03-16T18:41:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ourthoughts.ca\/2006\/03\/16\/doing-the-opposite\/"},"modified":"2006-03-16T15:08:54","modified_gmt":"2006-03-16T22:08:54","slug":"doing-the-opposite","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ourthoughts.ca\/2006\/03\/16\/doing-the-opposite\/","title":{"rendered":"Doing the Opposite"},"content":{"rendered":"
In reading Dallin H. Oaks talk from Nov 99 GC he states:<\/p>\n
Teachers who are commanded to teach “the principles of [the] gospel” and “the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77) should generally forgo teaching specific rules or applications. For example, they would not teach any rules for determining what is a full tithing, and they would not provide a list of dos and don’ts for keeping the Sabbath Day holy. Once a teacher has taught the doctrine and the associated principles from the scriptures and the living prophets, such specific applications or rules are generally the responsibility of individuals and families.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Why is it that if this is the correct way to teach you still get the same lesson in SS that discusses the very thing that he states to NOT do.. like what is considered a full tithe, or what is considered keeping the Sabbath Day holy etc etc. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In reading Dallin H. Oaks talk from Nov 99 GC he states: Teachers who are commanded to teach “the principles … Continue reading Doing the Opposite<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-556","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n
Doing the Opposite<\/title>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n