When Doubts and Questions Arise - March Ensign

[_son of Ishmael]

As for Church leaders generally getting things right, you just chucked Hinckley under the bus to maintain what you want to believe about Church Leaders. If Church leaders can only be trusted to get things right more often than not, in what way is the Church different to any other in the world where good people lead their faithful in generally the right direction?

Remember, Hinckley (the Prophet) didn't claim it was mostly true, he stated unequivocally that it was either ALL true, or else a big fraud. He didn't articulate the obfuscated middle ground you are seeking to occupy.

I've wondered if when Hinckley said that if he was having a moment of conscience. I think he knew it was all BS but he went on with it because, you know, why the “F” not? But for that moment he was easing his conscience a little

[_mentalgymnast]

Common consent. The Church is a communal kingdom. People have to be on board for anything to stay in place over time. And numbers do matter.
...

People are stupid at times. People can't always be trusted to do the right thing.

How do you reconcile these two ideas? I must be misunderstanding you - Are you saying Jesus allows the doctrine of his church to be determined by common consent?

Even if that were the case, which it clearly is not; I don't believe there was common consent for polygamy, or withholding of priesthood (from blacks or women), among other doctrines (or policies). Where are you getting this stuff?

I'm saying that sooner or later there has to be a meeting of the minds. Between God...His prophets...and 'us'. For that to happen, there may be a bunch of hoops to jump through, and bunch of time to move through, and a bunch of stuff that has to be cleaned up that may have made a mess of things along the way.

And in the middle of all that are human beings putting/entering their timetable and their expectations on God's calendar...not knowing where (figurative...literal(?) dates) He has marked 'preliminary'...'in process'...or 'completed'. And His calendar covers a lot more time and space than ours does. When He doesn't meet our expectations and/or a deadline for either initiating or resolving or clarifying or fixing (doctrines/policies/practices)...etc., we get kind of pissed off.

And we question/doubt.

Regards,
MG

[_sock puppet]

I'm saying that sooner or later there has to be a meeting of the minds. Between God...His prophets...and 'us'.

Like most three-party dynamics, that usually only occurs when the middlemen are removed from the scenario.

[_grindael]

I'm saying that sooner or later there has to be a meeting of the minds. Between God...His prophets...and 'us'. For that to happen, there may be a bunch of hoops to jump through, and bunch of time to move through, and a bunch of stuff that has to be cleaned up that may have made a mess of things along the way.

And in the middle of all that are human beings putting/entering their timetable and their expectations on God's calendar...not knowing where (figurative...literal(?) dates) He has marked 'preliminary'...'in process'...or 'completed'. And His calendar covers a lot more time and space than ours does. When He doesn't meet our expectations and/or a deadline for either initiating or resolving or clarifying or fixing (doctrines/policies/practices)...etc., we get kind of pissed off.

And we question/doubt.

Regards,
MG

This is a ridiculous way to try and explain Mormonism. The whole stated purpose of Mormonism was the fact that it had prophets that were needed by people to save them from the world. "Flee to Zion", said Smith, before the scourge overtakes you. No place is "safe" except Zion.

As former Mormon "prophets" (one by one) have been shown to be poor guides for the future, we now get expanded timetables and statements that God and his prophets and members need to have a "meeting of the minds". This is actually very amusing when one studies what Mormonism is really all about. MG's Mormonism is diametrically opposed to what Joseph Smith taught in every way. Jo Smith is a prophet to modern Mormons in name only, they only live by teachings that are convenient for them. They are not apart from the world, they are the world on steroids. What purpose is served by the Mormon god in putting a "prophet" on earth that isn't relevant? I find that to get to this train of thought one must want to be a Mormon so bad that one will talk themselves into believing anything they can make up to make it work. That's ok, but don't try and explain Mormonism, MG. You get an "F".

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm saying that sooner or later there has to be a meeting of the minds. Between God...His prophets...and 'us'. For that to happen, there may be a bunch of hoops to jump through, and bunch of time to move through, and a bunch of stuff that has to be cleaned up that may have made a mess of things along the way.

And in the middle of all that are human beings putting/entering their timetable and their expectations on God's calendar...not knowing where (figurative...literal(?) dates) He has marked 'preliminary'...'in process'...or 'completed'. And His calendar covers a lot more time and space than ours does. When He doesn't meet our expectations and/or a deadline for either initiating or resolving or clarifying or fixing (doctrines/policies/practices)...etc., we get kind of pissed off.

And we question/doubt.

Regards,
MG

This is a ridiculous way to try and explain Mormonism. The whole stated purpose of Mormonism was the fact that it had prophets that were needed by people to save them from the world. "Flee to Zion", said Smith, before the scourge overtakes you. No place is "safe" except Zion.

And as the Zion concept/narrative mutated and changed over time, what was the result? The teachings concerning Zion that we teach/live today are all inclusive and international. We're not holed up in Jackson County anymore. The Zion narrative at the time of Joseph Smith really didn't make sense...on the ground...in retrospect. But it did to them. And the Zion movement did MOVE people from one place to another, and they benefited as a result. Many received their endowments. Many had posterity that remained in the church. And then Zion moved to the Rocky Mountains. And now we have the duty/privilege of becoming a Zion people, no matter where we live. And we also have central Stakes in Zion by which the missionary program is mainly financed and administered. Zion as stretched her borders and grown to include a lot more folks than the original concept visualized by Joseph. Does that make him NOT a prophet for his people?

What purpose is served by the Mormon god in putting a "prophet" on earth that isn't relevant?

But he is. To the time/place/people he is ministering to. Going back to the Zion comment you made. As folks gathered to Zion and followed the prophet, they benefited from doing so. They were blessed.

I find that to get to this train of thought one must want to be a Mormon so bad that one will talk themselves into believing anything they can make up to make it work. That's ok, but don't try and explain Mormonism, MG. You get an "F".

And you are the professor?

Regards,
MG

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

There comes a point where you realize a person is interested in figuring something out, or he is enjoying mental masturbation.

- Doc

[_grindael]

And as the Zion concept/narrative mutated and changed over time, what was the result?

Why would what God told Joseph Smith “mutate and change over time”? Did God get it wrong? He sent Jo to Jackson Co. for…? He gave Jo the date for the redemption of Zion and then … forgot about it? This is silly.

The teachings concerning Zion that we teach/live today are all inclusive and international.

Because they were transformed by a desperate man who got it wrong.

We're not holed up in Jackson County anymore.

You never were. You got booted out.

The Zion narrative at the time of Joseph Smith really didn't make sense...on the ground...in retrospect.

You can say that about anything. But what good is a prophet who is shown to be senseless … in retrospect. In fact, in retrospect, every Mormon “prophet” has been senseless and wrong about every major social and civil rights issue since the Church began.

But it did to them.

Only because they bought his shtick.

And the Zion movement did MOVE people from one place to another, and they benefited as a result.

LOL, you love to rewrite history. They got FORCED from one place to another. They did though move to Missouri but how did that work out for them? Good people lost everything as they did in New York, Kirtland and Nauvoo.

Many received their endowments. Many had posterity that remained in the church.

Yes, and have you seen who was prosperous in Nauvoo? Go visit Nauvoo and take a look at the homes. Who had the nicest ones? Smith and his "apostles". The Hierarchy had the best homes and they all got their living from the Church. Some were wealthy, but they brought that with them. Smith got very wealthy off the church, that’s for sure, as did Brigham Young. And present day “prophets”.

And then Zion moved to the Rocky Mountains.

Again, forced out of Illinois. Joseph wanted to flee to Texas and was arranging to buy land there when he died. In fact, he accompanied Smith to Carthage. His Presidential run was pure hubris.

And now we have the duty/privilege of becoming a Zion people, no matter where we live.

If you say so, but it has nothing to do with the original concept. It is now a corporation, not a place of refuge.

And we also have central Stakes in Zion by which the missionary program is mainly financed and administered.

You have Church Headquarters in SLC where it all gets coordinated. The wrong centerplace.

Zion as stretched her borders and grown to include a lot more folks than the original concept visualized by Joseph. Does that make him NOT a prophet for his people?

No, because he was wrong about everything, created nothing but trouble for his people and got himself killed by his own stupidity. Again, if this is your idea of a prophet, fine by me. But stop trying to rewrite Mormon History. You are terrible at it.

But he is. To the time/place/people he is ministering to. Going back to the Zion comment you made. As folks gathered to Zion and followed the prophet, they benefited from doing so. They were blessed.

How is Monson relevant? He gets up and gives speeches. He spends tithing money on malls. If trouble was coming, he wouldn’t know a thing about it. He is simply the figurehead of a Corporation that some admire, etc. But he is not relevant to the world at all. Again, they were not blessed by any Mormon “prophet”. They were as “blessed” as any others who live in America. Mormon “prophets” had nothing to do with that. And this did not happen until they abandoned Smith’s concept of Zion. They lived in hell trying to follow his teachings about “the gathering” and polygamy. How many died on the way to SLC? At the command of Brigham Young (via Jo Smith) to gather? And yes, many got prosperous, but those were mainly the Hierarchy who sponged off the Church. The "gathering" served that purpose for Young. He built an empire from those immigrants, and was a millionaire when he died. He got a $10,000 a year salary. He was nothing like the man he claimed to worship. He was violent, greedy, petty and a liar and adulterer.

Your version of Mormon History is not convincing MG, and neither are your doctrinal aberrations.

And you are the professor?

If that works for you.

[_mentalgymnast]

Your version of Mormon History is not convincing MG, and neither are your doctrinal aberrations.

Can't see the forest for the trees.

Regards,
MG

[_grindael]

Your version of Mormon History is not convincing MG, and neither are your doctrinal aberrations.

Can't see the forest for the trees.

Regards,
MG

I doubt you can. That is your problem, you don't understand the basics and are trying to convince everyone around you that you have the big picture when all you have is your own invention based on nonsense.

[_mentalgymnast]

I doubt you can.

Can't see the forest for the trees:
"someone who is too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole"

I kinda had you in mind.

Regards,
MG