In response to Daniel's request

[_Daniel Peterson]

Redundant note to self: Expect to be misread and condemned by harmony, over and over and over again.

[_harmony]

I think that's really true, harm, that we see him through different lenses. I don't get the same sense from his posts that you do.

You weren't told that were he your bishop, he wouldn't sign your temple recommend. Do you know what that means, when said to an active church member, Jersey? Do you know what a slap in the face that is? Essentially, you weren't told that he would do everything in his power to circumvent your eternal exaltation, were it left up to him. You weren't told by that same statement that you were not only unworthy, but a liar. That he believes you lie to your bishop, when asked the temple recommend questions. And this he did, based not on his knowledge of me as a member of his ward, his acquaintence with me as a fellow church member, his stewardship and inspiration on my behalf as my bishop, but based on words on a screen. He laments that I condemn him. I may have often lamented that he doesn't appear to live his religion, but I have never tried to damn him to hell, though, which is exactly what he would do, were he my bishop, based on his own words.

I have never claimed to be a calm accepting poster, but I have never sought to get between him and his church leader, nor have I commented on his worthiness to attend the temple. On the contrary, I have always assumed he was worthy, even while he assumed I was not. Hence my many comments about how when next he attended the temple, to look across the aisle, and wonder which of those women was harmony.

We definitely see him through different lenses. I like him; he makes me laugh more than anyone else on this board, but I thank God every day that he is not my bishop, for were that the case, he would be instantly guilty of unrighteous dominion, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Redundant note to self: Expect to be misread and condemned by harmony, over and over and over again.

RE: Harmony's thesis---QED. Why not a little humility, Prof. P.?

[_Daniel Peterson]

RE: Harmony's thesis---QED. Why not a little humility, Prof. P.?

Some say 'tis hard to be a judge. Fortunately, others don't seem to find it difficult at all. Scratch, for example. Ever judging, though never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You weren't told that were he your bishop, he wouldn't sign your temple recommend.

And it's true that, based upon what I've read from Harmony on line, I would be inclined -- unless there were mitigating circumstances to be known personally -- to deny her a temple recommend.

Do you know what that means, when said to an active church member, Jersey? Do you know what a slap in the face that is? Essentially, you weren't told that he would do everything in his power to circumvent your eternal exaltation, were it left up to him.

That's simply not true. I have no power to exalt anybody, or to deny anybody exaltation, and I claim none.

But I do take very, very seriously my assigned role as one of the gatekeepers to the temple.

You weren't told by that same statement that you were not only unworthy, but a liar.

I've said nothing whatever about your worthiness, and I haven't called you a liar.

But I've said that, based upon what I've seen of your views, I would have real reservations about signing a temple recommend for you, were I your bishop.

I don't know how much your bishop knows of your views. Moreover, he's your bishop, and I'm not. I do not claim the right to intervene in his stewardship, and, as you're well aware, haven't done so.

That he believes you lie to your bishop, when asked the temple recommend questions.

I've said nothing of the kind.

And this he did, based not on his knowledge of me as a member of his ward, his acquaintence with me as a fellow church member, his stewardship and inspiration on my behalf as my bishop, but based on words on a screen.

They express your views, don't they?

He laments that I condemn him. I may have often lamented that he doesn't appear to live his religion, but I have never tried to damn him to hell, though, which is exactly what he would do, were he my bishop, based on his own words.

Just as I have no power either to exalt or to deny exaltation, I have and claim no power to damn nor to save from damnation.

But I do have to make decisions, several times each week, about who will be admitted to the temple and, sometimes, who will not. It is a duty assigned to me by the Church and, I believe, by God himself.

I have never claimed to be a calm accepting poster, but I have never sought to get between him and his church leader,

When or where have I sought to get between you and your church leader?

nor have I commented on his worthiness to attend the temple.

Nor have I on yours. As I've said several times, you may well be a saint in your daily, real life. I have no way of knowing, and it's not my role to judge. But moral worthiness isn't the only consideration in deciding whether one should be permitted to enter the temple or not. There are also questions about belief. A thoroughly saintly atheist would, according to the rules of the Church, be denied entrance to the temple. A perfectly righteous Methodist would not be permitted access to the temple. In order to obtain a temple recommend, the candidate for a recommend must answer questions about belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, about acceptance of Jesus as Savior and Redeemer, about a testimony of the Restoration, about sustaining Church leaders. A very, very good person might nonetheless fail to answer one or more of those questions in a way that would qualify him or her for a temple recommend.

Your bishop may know as much as I do about your views and still feel that you should receive a recommend. If so, that's his decision, and I honor it. But he may not know as much as I do, and he may be satisfied with answers that, given what I know about your positions, would not satisfy me.

On the other hand, he may know extenuating or mitigating things that I don't know. I can only comment hypothetically {"were I your bishop, knowing what I know now"), based upon several years of reading you on line.

On the contrary, I have always assumed he was worthy, even while he assumed I was not.

I have never assumed that you're unworthy. I'm neither qualified nor authorized to judge your worthiness. I don't know you, either.

Hence my many comments about how when next he attended the temple, to look across the aisle, and wonder which of those women was harmony.

When I'm in the temple, my thoughts are not concentrated on the strangers who might be in the room with me. I certainly don't spend my time gawking at the women.

We definitely see him through different lenses. I like him; he makes me laugh more than anyone else on this board, but I thank God every day that he is not my bishop, for were that the case, he would be instantly guilty of unrighteous dominion, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I would not be guilty of unrighteous dominion in either granting you or failing to grant you a temple recommend, were I your bishop, since that is one of the principal duties of a bishop. Even if I were mistaken in my decision, it would not be unrighteous dominion if I were seriously attempting to follow the rules and principles of my calling. And, if it came to that, my denial of a recommend to you would not prevent your exaltation: If my decision were incorrect, the Lord would hold it against me, not you; if my decision were correct, it would be you yourself jeopardizing your exaltation, if in fact it were being jeopardized.

[_Jersey Girl]

This whole thread is total crap.

Just sayin'

[_Dr. Shades]

This whole thread is total crap.

Just sayin'

What contribution are you planning to make that will elevate it to a level above crap?

[_harmony]

You weren't told that were he your bishop, he wouldn't sign your temple recommend.

And it's true that, based upon what I've read from Harmony on line, I would be inclined -- unless there were mitigating circumstances to be known personally -- to deny her a temple recommend.

There you go, Daniel. Your inability to see that you are doing to me exactly what you accuse me of doing to you is manifest, once again, for everyone to see.

You don't know me! Yet, based on what you've read on your screen you feel qualified to judge me. You flail against me judging you, based on what I've read on my screen, then you turn around and do exactly as you accuse me of doing... and you don't even realize it.

There is nothing in the TRI that I can be accused of violating. Nothing! There is nothing that says I must honor, revere, worship, or sustain Joseph Smith as a prophet. Nothing. Do I need to post the questions, so everyone can see? I am required to have a testimony of the restoration, which I have. I am not required to keep quiet about Joseph's actions, behaviors, or quirks, or anything he did after 1833.

I am required to sustain my current prophet, which I do. I'm not required to agree with every decision he makes, in order to sustain him. I am allowed to plead with the Lord to determine if his decisions have bearing on my own salvation, and I am allowed to walk my own path without interference from my bishop or anyone else as long as I am within the boundaries of the TRI.

The rest of your post is just excuses. Were you to deny me a temple recommend for which I qualify, based on your inability to get past the animosity in your heart (and please don't deny something that is so easily seen in your posts), you would indeed be exercising unrighteous dominion and your priesthood would be null and void. You carry a heavy burden, and regarding the members of your ward, you have to be right for the right reasons or you lose the keys you hold. You would be wrong about me. Count your blessings that I am not in your ward.

[_Dr. Shades]

Holding or not holding a current temple recommend has no bearing whatsoever on one's salvation, just so long as one has had one's endowments at some time in the past, right?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Harmony,

I am required to sustain my current prophet, which I do. I'm not required to agree with every decision he makes, in order to sustain him. I am allowed to plead with the Lord to determine if his decisions have bearing on my own salvation, and I am allowed to walk my own path without interference from my bishop or anyone else as long as I am within the boundaries of the TRI.

This is what is weird to me...

On the one hand, apologists (differing from chapel Mormons) claim that they are not supposed to blindly follow their leaders, that they should pray for inspiration, receive their personal confirmation, yada, yada, yada.

OTOH if someone doesn't agree with some statement from the Brethren, prays about it and comes to an opposing (or perhaps not in agreement) belief they are somehow not in tune, or should not be allowed to enter the temple?

What?

I wonder why there are no questions in the TRI about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, or turning the other cheek, or trying to live as a disciple of Christ (you know, love one another?), or attempting to live with true charity, or embracing the beatitudes (the meek shall inherit the earth), etc. etc. etc.

~td~

~td~