NOM Warning: What Really Lies Beneath

[_Droopy]

Wayfarer placed a very interesting and revealing account, supplied with his own checklist of linguistic diversionary tactics, of how to get and retain a temple recommend when one doesn't actually accept, let alone have a testimony of, very much, in any, of the fundamental truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The trick is a careful Clintonesque massaging of words. Wayfarer has done a fine job of creating a situation in which he can lie directly into the face of a priesthood leader about his actual convictions while morally recusing himself of deception through a plethora of his own idiosyncratically redefined terms, the existence of which, of course, his Bishop and SP will never be made aware.

Follow me through the labyrinth, and if we meet the Minotaur, don't back down. That's what he wants.

i do not in any way endorse lying to get a temple recommend...

Oh my...

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3369

Over at the StayLDS.com site, a website dedicated to strategies for convincing one's priesthood leaders that one is a faithful, believing LDS when he/she is nothing of the sort (the reasons for doing which remain opaque to me), we see, just for one example:

TR Question Survey - Question 3: Restoration


Postby wayfarer » 07 Jul 2012, 05:17
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

I would answer this YES, absolutely!

The Restoration is probably the single most important reason I stay LDS. My conclusion after years and years of research and thought on this topic is that Joseph Smith did a very effective job at restoring the original Church of Jesus Christ, warts and all.

(And although this post was ready a few days ago, I've rewritten it.)

So let me be quite clear on this. The original Church of Jesus Christ was a human fabricated institution trying to follow what they felt were the teachings of Jesus Christ. They believed in revelation, a form of the plan of salvation, had a wide set of beliefs about the nature of god, established a called, lay priesthood, recognized the value of both faith and works, tried to establish a Zion-like United Order community, and had numerous problems associated with not having an insititutionalized set of doctrine and structure.

In my opinion, Joseph Smith restored exactly that: a human-fabricated institution trying to follow what they thought were the teachings of Christ, including revelation, plan of salvation, diverse and creative opinions about the nature of god, a structural male hierarchy of lay priesthood, a duality of faith and works as necessary, and tried to establish Zion. It pretty much fits the original church, flaws and all.

And you know what else Joseph Smith restored? Pious Fraud: the invention of inspired fiction and calling historical scripture -- a hallmark of religious systems since the beginning of time.

In other words, by completely redefining the meaning of the term "restoration" and through a thorough revision of what the concept "Church of Jesus Christ" means to the Church and against the background of core LDS doctrine, wayfarer can claim to be honestly answering the TR interview questions when in reality he is playing a very crafty shell game with his priesthood leaders - those entrusted in seeing that those entering the temple are worthy - and spiritually prepared - to do so.

He plays the same furtive head games with the Jesus Christ himself, understood as the God, creator, and sustainer of the universe and the foundation and center of LDS worship,

TR Question Survey - Question 1b: Jesus Christ

Postby wayfarer » 04 Jul 2012, 05:34
1b. Do you have faith in and a testimony of His Son Jesus Christ?

My answer is a resounding YES.

As with the entire first question, we are asked whether we have faith and testimony, not, do I 'know' and accept the standard definition.

I do not have to believe every literal aspect of Jesus Christ. Like Jefferson, I do not place any stock in 'miracles', for they seem to be built on a non-scientific, primitive worldview. They're possible, but I don't have to believe in them to accept the divinity of Christ. To me, Jesus is 'the Christ': the 'anointed', or in other words, the 'archetype' of the enlightened being.

I do not know if he was born of a virgin or was resurrected physically from the dead. I'd like to believe that he existed as god from everlasting to everlasting, but even this concept isn't universally believed in the church. As for virgin birth, this might have been a mistranslation of "almah"/young woman as the Bible was translated into greek. As for his death and resurrection – I don't know if these occurred how the scriptures say they do, I tend to think of these events as symbolic/mythological, but I'm not rejecting the possibility they were literally true – they just don't need to be true for me in my definition of who Jesus Christ is.

In other words, he has no belief, faith, or testimony of Jesus Christ as understood in the Church and as required for a TR.


And of our Father in Heaven?

TR Question Survey - Question 1a: God

Postby wayfarer » 03 Jul 2012, 09:18
I have broken this question into three questions, and because the very first part may cause many to stumble in saying 'no', let's start with the very most basic:

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father?

My answer is YES.

The question is really do I believe in god, however I define him, and somehow have faith in this being. A 'Testimony' is my witness of that being: really the way in which I have made a conclusion to believe/have faith in god.

The question is NOT, do I know that God is exactly as the LDS Standard Definition of God (SDOG) is defined:

Wrong. This is not the Church of the Postmodern Latter-day Whateverists, but of Jesus Christ. The question is about God as revealed and taught in the restored kingdom through living prophets, and seeks to elicit whether or not the responder understands, accepts, and, ideally, has a living, spiritual witness by the power of the the Holy Spirit of those truths. Wayfarer knows this perfectly well, but the call of open-ended, ideologically convenient, subjectivist relativism - a defining feature of the NOM condition - is just too strong.

Now, let's wade into deeper, muddier water, shall we?

TR Question Survey - Question 5: Law of Chastity

Postby wayfarer » 09 Jul 2012, 04:08
5. Do you live the law of chastity?

A bit of history here. Prior to 1990, the "Law of Chastity" was explicity defined as not having "sexual intercourse" except with your husband or wife, to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. In 1990, the term was changed to "sexual relations".

I think, particularly, that the perceived ambiguity of the term 'sexual relations' puts a huge amount of guilt on people. Sexual relations does NOT include masturbation or pornography, nor should it include most things termed as "necking" or "petting", therefore these non-intercourse actions are not in violation with the Law of Chastity, at least according to the letter. The spirit of the law could be much more expansive, including looking in lust at another person's spouse, and a whole host of things that are inappropriate. Personally, I think the spirit of this law is very important and should be followed. In answering this question, however, the answer is about the letter, not the spirit.

According to wayfarer, masturbation, pornography, and oral sex are not violations of the law of chastity, and one is temple worthy while engaging actively in these practices.

There is a very easy means by which wayfarer could check for himself whether or not any of his views here were actually legitimate, by church standards, but that, of course, would be to defeat the entire purpose of his subterfuge.

[_cwald]

Droopy. Why don't you call his stake president and get his TR revoked?

That staylds website is the worst of the worst when it comes to hidden apostates websites.

[_Droopy]

Droopy. Why don't you call his stake president and get his TR revoked?

That staylds website is the worst of the worst when it comes to hidden apostates websites.

Its not my call. The consequences of his dishonesty before God and those called worthily to preside over him in offices of priesthood leadership are on his own head.

I am bit stumped, however, as to why he or others like him would wish to remain in the the Church at all, or in such a surreptitious manner.

[_Infymus]

[Guest]

Ah. So now that I've been banned, the attack network has begun. Until this moment, I have never merited Droopy's attention.

Does anyone know the Droopy Sock-Puppet's identity is on MAD-Board?

Droopy, or Dan, or William the Idiot, please get a clue.

Restoration:

In other words, by completely redefining the meaning of the term "restoration" and through a thorough revision of what the concept "Church of Jesus Christ" means to the Church and against the background of core LDS doctrine, wayfarer can claim to be honestly answering the TR interview questions when in reality he is playing a very crafty shell game with his priesthood leaders - those entrusted in seeing that those entering the temple are worthy - and spiritually prepared - to do so.

Have you studied the original Church of Jesus Christ? Do you even remotely know what you're talking about? I have studied the early fathers' material in depth, including an extensive study of the Jamesian church in Jerusalem. My testimony of an authentic restoration of the gospel is secure and informed. Is yours? My faith in that restoration is a conscious choice on my part, having had tangible evidence of what that restoration is all about.

In rejecting my testimony, and mischaracterizing it as you who sit in moses seat always do, you have demonstrated yourself a fool and a liar.

Jesus Christ:

In other words, he has no belief, faith, or testimony of Jesus Christ as understood in the Church and as required for a TR.

Once again you demonstrate yourself as clueless and a liar. There is nothing in the question, nor the requirement about belief. Thus you demonstrate your have no idea what you're talking about -- as usual.

As for faith and testimony, as usual, you selectively picked from what I said, or anyone says, out of context, created a straw-man by the misquote, and didn't include the part that completely destroys your strawman. For the record, I said:

I believe that Jesus Christ was a soul fully one with the powers of the universe, he was fully enlightened and thus fully god. Since the church teaches that Jesus Christ learned line-upon-line and precept-upon-precept, I can accept that the man Jesus came to be enlightened in the same way that we can become enlightened. He even said that we should be as he is and follow what he did. He is the archetype: the pattern to follow to be enlightened.

When he declared, "I am the way, the truth, and the life", he was speaking of the enlightened self – the I AM, who, being authentically one with the powers of the universe in that moment, is completely in harmony with those powers: "The Way". As well, as he is authentic, he is 'Truth', and as he fully is, he is "Life". This is a symbolic concept, but the power of which is replete in my life.

So, yes, I have faith in and a testimony of Jesus Christ in this every deep sense: he marks the path and leads the Way, and every point defines, to light and life, and endless day, where god's full presence shines. These words of Eliza R. Snow are as good a definition of enlightenment as any I have read.

If you want to disparage or discredit my testimony, please feel free to do so. but before you do, please tell the truth and stop lying.

Law of Chastity:

I think, particularly, that the perceived ambiguity of the term 'sexual relations' puts a huge amount of guilt on people. Sexual relations does NOT include masturbation or pornography, nor should it include most things termed as "necking" or "petting", therefore these non-intercourse actions are not in violation with the Law of Chastity, at least according to the letter. The spirit of the law could be much more expansive, including looking in lust at another person's spouse, and a whole host of things that are inappropriate. Personally, I think the spirit of this law is very important and should be followed. In answering this question, however, the answer is about the letter, not the spirit.

According to wayfarer, masturbation, pornography, and oral sex are not violations of the law of chastity, and one is temple worthy while engaging actively in these practices.

So here we have caught you in the most common practice of misconstruing what someone says and outright lying. You, droopy are a liar and a fool.

The "Law of Chastity" as explicitly defined in the Temple is to have "Sexual Relations" outside of marriage. Prior to 1990, it meant explicitly, "Sexual Intercourse". No-one credibly includes "masturbation" or "pornography" in any coherent or standard definition of "Sexual Relations", so you are a fool, for not knowing what you're talking about. No surprise there.

But as well, I never mentioned "oral sex" as being "outside" of the Law of Chastity. You lied in saying that I included "oral sex" as not a violation of the LoC. On a personal note, I do think that oral sex is contained in the definition of "Sexual Relations", and in fact there are many bridging activities that certainly put one on the wrong path, including things outside of the definition of "sexual relations".

So you by mischaracterizing what I said, you are a liar. In so doing, have given me yet another documented piece of evidence of the standard practice of the "Interpreters of Mormon Scripture" that sit in moses seat.

[_cwald]

Droopy. Why don't you call his stake president and get his TR revoked?

That staylds website is the worst of the worst when it comes to hidden apostates websites.

Its not my call. The consequences of his dishonesty before God and those called worthily to preside over him in offices of priesthood leadership are on his own head...

Correct. And that should be the end of this conversation between active church members.

[_Equality]

If a NOM "lies" to get a TR, won't the spirit of discernment of the Bishop and SP root out the lie? Or are the priesthood leaders not really inspired after all?

[_Infymus]

If a NOM "lies" to get a TR, won't the spirit of discernment of the Bishop and SP root out the lie? Or are the priesthood leaders not really inspired after all?

I once sat in my arrogant Stake President's office while he waxed long in the tooth about the Temple - and I recall thinking in my mind what an absolute dick he was, and a few other, no, many other choice four letter words about him. We then closed with a prayer and he commented about how spiritual our meeting was.

Mormons are as good at discernment as fortune tellers, nothing more.

[_zeezrom]

Keep up the good work, Wayfarer. The church needs more people like you. The Droopies of the world just suck the life right out of it.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hey Droopy.

I ask sincerely. What do you care? Really this seems to tork you big time. Why? YOu want to purge all us NOMers out? You want us to quit? Hell maybe we should. I can take my five figure contributions and the hundreds of hours I give to the Church a year and march away. It may make life easier really.

Look buddy life is hard. Good for you that you are able through all your challenges as well as the painful evidence that the LDS Church founding claims have so many holes in them you can drive a tank through it. I wish I could. I want too. I try. I pray for it. I get nothing at all on this these days. It makes me weep. Yes weep. You think I am lying? You think I like where I am at. I gave my life to this Church. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Countless thousands of hours. Up until 7 or 8 years ago it was the end all of end alls in my life. My rock. My certainty. I knew it as well as you claim too. I do not like where I am at one bit.

But I stick with it. I try very hard to keep going with it for many reasons that I have listed here before.

Would you rather me not? Would you prefer to purge the church so it remains pure for you and those like you and thus you have this monolithic Mormonism that may be pure for you?

I honestly do not understand. We can all bolt and get out of the way. But if we leave then what chance is there of ever converting us back to what we were really?

So like I said, life is hard and I know you know it because you have your own challenges. As we all do. Why not leave people alone and let them get by the best they can. You don’t like Wayfarers answers? Well who does he hurt? Really? Who? Poor guy is just trying to get by best he can.