Church leaders as people or as empty icons?

[_Franktalk]

We need to love each other for what we are not for what we believe or others believe in this life of flesh. All things around us are as dust. Nothing matters except our relationship with each other and our God. Those who hate us do so because they have allowed the world to tickle their feelings and brought them down to the earth. How can we hate someone who has attached them self to an illusion. We are to see past this meaningless physical dimension and cast off the world so it does not have power over us. We all are wrong. We all sin in the world.

How could Christ ask us to be perfect as the Father? There is only one way. See past this created thing and see what matters. Care not for the things of this world. Love all of the souls that pass your way. And help them to know the Father. Be the light for all to see.

I would hate to be a GA. To live under a microscope and have every word fawned over. Yes, they are empty icons of mans construction. I pretty much ignore them except when they say "Thus sayeth the Lord" And since I don't hear that I just treat them as leaders of the church, basically administrators. They repeat what the gospel has said in so many ways. There is no harm in that. But if they add doctrine of man then we can ignore them. Because Jesus wants us to search a matter out by using scripture. And if we as an individual reject a GA because they have strayed from the gospel then we are following a higher calling.

I have told two Bishops and Stake Presidents that I will double check everything from any leader in the church. I have received only support in my statements. But I see the current leaders as parrots repeating what others have said. There is nothing wrong with giving people a good story that deals with the love of God or the love of family. Anyone who rejects a GA needs to tell me what they found in scripture that disagrees with what they said. I will not hold my breath waiting.

[_Philo Sofee]

Franktalk:

Anyone who rejects a GA needs to tell me what they found in scripture that disagrees with what they said. I will not hold my breath waiting.

Monson says never even entertain doubts, throw them out and cling to faith no matter what. The scripture, though, says "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." Aren't ya glad I hurried and typed this so you don't have to turn blue from holding yer breath?

[_zeezrom]

Franktalk:

Anyone who rejects a GA needs to tell me what they found in scripture that disagrees with what they said. I will not hold my breath waiting.

I'm curious why this is used as criteria to judge the apostles of Jesus. Seems the apostles of Jesus are redundant if they just repeat what the scriptures already told us.

[_Franktalk]

Monson says never even entertain doubts, throw them out and cling to faith no matter what. The scripture, though, says "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." Aren't ya glad I hurried and typed this so you don't have to turn blue from holding yer breath?

That is a goal. To have strong faith.

Mat 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Monson is just asking us to have faith. Nothing new here.

Mat 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.

and

Mat 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

[_Franktalk]

I'm curious why this is used as criteria to judge the apostles of Jesus. Seems the apostles of Jesus are redundant if they just repeat what the scriptures already told us.

If truth is unchanging and the Book of Mormon is but a second witness then any church leader should just repeat what has already been said. Why would they add new stuff? I don't expect them to add new stuff. Other than some administration of the church I don't see anything new.

Man has been told to be good. Yet he is not. As often as the message has gone out it still has not been received. Should we just give up? Is it the message or those who receive the message? I think the Apostles of today are place holders.

[_zeezrom]

If truth is unchanging and the Book of Mormon is but a second witness then any church leader should just repeat what has already been said. Why would they add new stuff? I don't expect them to add new stuff. Other than some administration of the church I don't see anything new.

A Bible? A Bible? Why do we need another? Why do we need prophets? Why do we need revelation?

Are the apostles just a bunch of administrators?

Man has been told to be good. Yet he is not.

I disagree. I feel man is good. They are bad too.

As often as the message has gone out it still has not been received. Should we just give up? Is it the message or those who receive the message? I think the Apostles of today are place holders.

Placeholder administrators? Then they are not revelators, apostles, or prophets.

[_harmony]

Mankind is good; perfect is what mankind is not.

[_Philo Sofee]

Monson says never even entertain doubts, throw them out and cling to faith no matter what. The scripture, though, says "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." Aren't ya glad I hurried and typed this so you don't have to turn blue from holding yer breath?

That is a goal. To have strong faith.

Not mine. I see no reason to accept what those earlier far smaller IQ people have to say as reality and truth. I want knowledge based on actual reasoning and analysis, based upon valid information and context, using evidence as a basis for rational thinking, not some cop out spiritualized version of "shut up, sit down, and believe what I say, it'll do you good" type thinking.

[_harmony]

... not some cop out spiritualized version of "shut up, sit down, and believe what I say, it'll do you good" type thinking.

Or else your family will cease to exist after you die.

[_Franktalk]

Not mine. I see no reason to accept what those earlier far smaller IQ people have to say as reality and truth. I want knowledge based on actual reasoning and analysis, based upon valid information and context, using evidence as a basis for rational thinking, not some cop out spiritualized version of "shut up, sit down, and believe what I say, it'll do you good" type thinking.

I find many people with this opinion. The ancients were stupid and we are so much smarter. I mean they just came out of caves and such they must be barely able to know they were sentient. Whereas you being much more highly advanced can easily figure out their cultures and languages. I mean our language and culture is so much more advanced than these knuckle dragging low IQ idiots.

So with this basic truth firmly in place let us put that truth to a minor test shall we?

I challenge you to learn the ancient language of Sumerian. It is one of the earliest forms of writing and spoken language. Here is a link to get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language

With your superior IQ and advanced culture I am sure this is mere child's play. So let us give you a week. Then I will give you some pictures of cuneiform tablets to decipher. At that point I will be happy to acknowledge your superior IQ to all on these boards. Or we could conclude you are nothing but a bag of hot air with worthless comments. One or the other.