Jason Bourne wrote:Oh I suppose it would be nice to be a Martin Luther reformer for the LDS Church. Guy Sajer suggests that someone should be. Maybe I am too much of wimp. But I am not that worried about it now.
Consider what you just wrote.
Martin Luther was excommunicated. He did not reform the church that kicked him to the curb.
To the TBM and hierarchy you would not be a lost sheep or an inspired sheep but a wolf. And when they are apprised of the intents of your heart you will be dealt similarly as Luther was.
The definition of what you consider "reform" is a matter of perspective.
Ok
your comments are fair.
And maybe a wee harsh.
Do I think you're a wolf? not sure. But I think that ultimately it would make the world a better place if we were all more honest in our opinions.
Honestly, I think there are more Mormons that think like you than those who truly believe. I truly believed. I was pretty much leadership material (gag). Over the years I came to recognize I was not so common.
I guess I don't understand. I feel like this is reading Spong and his approach to God and scripture.
In order for you to partake of the banquet at all, at some level you are believing that God sanctioned or condoned Mormonism. Right? So in order to protect God in all of this banquet, you've got to divorce the entire church from God. That is where I am confused. If you have to divorce the entire thing because you feel it is completely in apostacy from God, then why is it not easier just to go to a different banquet?
Edited to add: To clarify, to which part do you hold God responsible?
I think God gave Joseph an unusual gift. One gift. Unfortunately, Joseph saw the monetary potential behind that gift, and then proceeded to inflate his gift, until it was taken from him and he forfeited his life because of it.
That which I find fits within the inspiration I've been given, I keep. That which doesn't, I toss aside.
I guess I don't understand. I feel like this is reading Spong and his approach to God and scripture.
In order for you to partake of the banquet at all, at some level you are believing that God sanctioned or condoned Mormonism. Right? So in order to protect God in all of this banquet, you've got to divorce the entire church from God. That is where I am confused. If you have to divorce the entire thing because you feel it is completely in apostacy from God, then why is it not easier just to go to a different banquet?
Edited to add: To clarify, to which part do you hold God responsible?
I think God gave Joseph an unusual gift. One gift. Unfortunately, Joseph saw the monetary potential behind that gift, and then proceeded to inflate his gift, until it was taken from him and he forfeited his life because of it.
That which I find fits within the inspiration I've been given, I keep. That which doesn't, I toss aside.
So then, you believe Smith was a divine prophet of god?
Will you please describe this gift that you believe god gave smith?
Boaz & Lidia wrote:So then, you believe Smith was a divine prophet of god?
He was never divine. However that doesn't stop him from being a prophet of God. What stopped him was his ego.
Will you please describe this gift that you believe god gave smith?
Joseph's gift wasn't unique, in that there have been men who did what he did for centuries. We generally call them prophets too. Joseph wrote a book that was later canonized by a group of people as scripture. The process has also been going on for centuries. That doesn't mean every word of the book was God-breathed, but then neither is every word of the Bible God-breathed. Men wrote that book too, and have been tinkering with it ever since.