No it is a dilemma for the Church.
No, only the apostate from the Church has a dilemma to contend with, not the Church.
What is the Church to do with such persons?
Nothing, unless they step over a certain line into an excommunicable transgression, and even then, those things go on a case by case basis.
The wheat and the tares will grow together until the very end. No matter how many times this is stated, you still seem to fixate upon the "What is the Church going to do with them" meme. Some virgins will have their lamps trimmed and full at the wedding feast, and many others will not.
It seems to have chosen to pretty much leave them alone. So unlike what happened in the early 1990s. How the Church reacts to such will make a big difference as to how the Church looks in the future.
The Church is true. How it "looks" to Babylon is irrelevant. It is not going to change, modify, alter or remake itself for you, Joanna Brooks, Michael Quinn, or anybody else.
How so? How is it a dilemma for those YOU term as not valiant?
If the Church is true, and they choose not to participate in it and accept its doctrines and ordinances, then they will have restored to them in the resurrection what they were willing to receive in this life, as great or as small and diminished as that may be.
Droopy, do you view yourself and a mighy warrior for the cause of truth? I mean really do you? Do you view everyone who varies from your dogmatic narrow little view of things as your enemy who you must deal with harshly?
Please, indulge yourself, Bishop.
Do you have a calling in the Church?
Yes, I'm the branch missionary.
Do you home teach those who are less active?
Yes. They just reorganized the home teaching routes and I have four new inactive families.
Do you talk to them this way?
No, and I have never been talked to the way I'm talked to here by any inactive families I've ever home taught. I have never really met any anti-Mormon apostates, as exist here in the Internet world in concentrated form, in that capacity, save a couple of times, many years ago, and those meetings were brief, and it was made clear that no contact with the Church was desired. That was the end of that.
Tell me what do you think of this by one of the LDS apostles who you claim to follow?
From M. Russell Ballard's 'Doctrine of Inclusion'.
"I have never taught—nor have I ever heard taught—a doctrine of exclusion. I have never heard the members of this Church urged to be anything but loving, kind, tolerant, and benevolent to our friends and neighbors of other faiths. The Lord expects a great deal from us. Parents, please teach your children and practice yourselves the principle of inclusion of others and not exclusion because of religious, political, or cultural differences."
https://www.LDS.org/general-conference/ ... usion?lang
Don't dodge the question. It applies to how you approach Dehlin and Brooks. It applied to those you love to hate here.
I see no relevance whatsoever here within the context of the Good Samaritan and to being tolerant and friendly toward people of other faiths and who do not belong to the Church to my long articulated criticism of those who are attempting to introduce and import incompatible and inconsistent doctrines, teachings, ideological beliefs, and philosophies from the world into the Church, and to dilute its revealed doctrines and shepard a convergence between the Church and the surrounding secular culture.
I agree with everything Elder Ballard has said. But there's a bit more to it than that. You're not going to be able to silence the apologetics movement by taking the words of the Brethren out of context and deploying them as a moral club, leaving people like John Dehlin on their soap box unchallenged and unopposed in the marketplace of ideas.
Been there, seen that.
You really think the lessons have become so painfully boring and simple because of the problems of the public schools? You think the LDS Church correlation committee is approving the pablum that passes off as priesthood manuals because it thinks people are
In your churlish, arrogant presumption of authority to sit in judgement of the Lord's anointed servants, you may prate and prattle all you wish about things such as this, and clearly, you have not serious thought it through at all. Fortunately, these things are not up to you, or other "wolves" in sheep's clothing like you, pretending to be concerned for the welfare of the Church when in reality, you are seeking to transform it to more closely resemble your own golden calf-like likeness.
So the rest of the blah, blah, blah, and more self righteous blah, blah, blah, was snipped, and here it will end.
