Still want to fight about the intro?

[_BishopRic]

You're missing the point. What business is it of yours how she lives...whether she interprets and lives the rules the same way you do? Again, I see it frequently in the church -- you have just demonstrated it, and BCSpace says he never sees it. I'm an eye doc, and I think y'all need to come see me so I can help you see better!

The point is that people make claims to legitimacy so their opinions will carry weight.

No, you again miss what I was saying. YOU are telling Harmony what she should do next time she meets with the bishop regarding her temple recommend. THAT is a judgment...a judgment that unless you are her Bishop, you have no business making. Remember that beam/mote story? THAT is the point.

Remember Palmer with his "Insiders's View.. ." book.

Yes, I studied with him while he was writing the book.

He used the word insider so people would think he really knew what he was talking about.

Of course he (and his publisher) did. He was the Director of Seminaries and Institutes for CA and UT for a time. I think that makes him an "Insider." You defenders sure spend a lot of time trying to discredit his use of the term "Insider." You might want to consider talking about what he wrote. His book has opened the eyes of many of us former members.

Harmony says she is a temple attending LDS. She is claiming a sort of "insider" status.

As I may choose to do with my "BishopRic" name (as a former bishop). I think most of us on this board could use the term "Insider," with our many years of experience in the church.

People will look at her posts and make judgements about her posts based on that. Her claim to speak on any LDS doctrine or practice is given more weight. If that is not a clear statement of her position, then it is not being upfront.

People will judge a person's words on a forum based on much of what they say. So what? That's why we post here, to express an opinion. But when YOU start telling her what she should do in her bishop's interviews, I call that codependency, and you have overstepped your bounds.

She can live her life anyway she choses, which she is obviously doing. I don't know her. I don't know where she lives. I don't say anything to her ward members. All she is is an anonymous poaster on board critical of LDS

As many of us are. That's what this board is about. You defend it, other's critique it. Some posts are compelling to others, some not. But in my opinion, when one spends energy worrying about what another should be telling her bishop, I think it says a lot about them.

[_truth dancer]

The point is that people make claims to legitimacy so their opinions will carry weight. Remember Palmer with his "Insiders's View.. ." book. He used the word insider so people would think he really knew what he was talking about.

What in the world?

Are you suggesting Harmony is claiming to be an active TR holding member so her opinions "carry weight"? LOL!

First, I find it very odd that you think holding a TR holds "weight"? To whom? Do you think your opinion holds more weight because you have a TR?

Harmony says she is a temple attending LDS. She is claiming a sort of "insider" status.

This is funny. You think that if a person has a TR they are an "insider"? Umm charity, most of us here have been TR holders. I truly don't think having or not have a current TR indicates someone is more or less knowledgeable about the church. In fact, I am quite certain many folks here know much more than the average TR carrying member. ;-)

People will look at her posts and make judgements about her posts based on that.

Well, you certainly seem to. What sorts of judgments are YOU making? What difference does it make to anyone?

Her claim to speak on any LDS doctrine or practice is given more weight. If that is not a clear statement of her position, then it is not being upfront.

Given more weight by whom? You? You seriously think that if someone has a TR their opinions are given more weight? Do you think YOUR opinions are given more weight because you have a TR? No offense Charity (smile), but I don't think this is the case.

Harmony's opinions are valued not because she holds a TR but because she is a thoughtful, caring, kind, and passionate human being who contributes and adds value, wisdom, and insight to our discussions. Personally, I think she is a great example of what it means to be a follower of Christ!


:-)



~dancer~

[_Sethbag]

You may ask why did they continue in an idea that was not correct. Maybe because they never asked. If you think you know something, you don't tend to ask a question about it. And in all His dealings with men, I don't know of one incidence where God stepped in and said, "Oh, by the way, this little thing over here that you think is correct, really isn't." God waits until we ask. They didn't ask.

Acts 10. Peter is told by the Lord through a vision that his attitude toward gentiles is wrong and that he should change his views and meet with them. There's no indication that he asked a question that lead to this. The Lord gave Peter a head's up before Cornelius' servants showed up, so that he'd recognize that this was what the dream was about and act on it. This was the Lord directly instructing Peter in something, and correcting him, without Peter have had to ask a question leading up to.

Really, I find this whole notion that the Lord will not instruct his Prophets in any thing unless they first ask him about it to be utterly absurd. This seems, to me, to be an ad hoc defensive theory you've come up with in order to justify Prophets of God teaching so much error and untruth. The notion that God would not instruct his Prophets unless they first asked the right question is utterly contrary to the notion that God actually leads and directs his church through Prophets.

Whatever evidence you find that Prophets first thought of and asked questions before getting their answer from the Lord is actually a pretty good evidence that they're just making it up themselves. Just like in 1978 when SWK and the Q12 talked about giving blacks the priesthood, and prayed about it, and thought about it until they were able to convince each other that God was OK with it. It's a human experience, not a Divine revelation.

I wonder if Gordon B. Hinckley would have the balls to approach the Lord and ask him whether organic evolution is the mechanism by which the human species (and all the others) came into being? I wonder if he'd have the balls to ask the Lord where Zarahemla was? I wonder if he'd have the balls to ask when he can have the sealed portion of the Golden Plates so that the rest of the Book of Mormon can be translated? I wonder if Gordon B. Hinckley would have the balls to put Joseph Smith's seerstone into a hat and bury his face in it, and try to translate something?

Somehow I doubt it. The leadership of this church is all about maintaining the membership, growing the numbers, increasing the revenues, etc. It's not, and never was, about actually communing with God and receiving actual, genuine, "you can take this to the bank", "apologists will never backtrack on this", honest, 100% ironclad, revelation.

[_harmony]

That's because they're just men and they don't talk to God directly anymore than anyone else does. They see through a dark glass just like the rest of us.

You might want to talk to the bishop about that on your next temple recommend interview when you get to Question #2.

They are just men. Fallible men, as are all of us. But they can and do talk to God directly on occasion. We can talk to God, too, but he won't tell us anything that doesn't pertain to us individually.

Charity, that was direct from Pres Hinckley. Take it up with him. He's the one who said he hears what God wants the same way we all do: via the still small voice.

[_harmony]

It is all about consistency. Harmony has said she has a temple recommend. She presents herself here as a believing, temple attending LDS. So what she says is to be considered as a believing member.

Yet on more than one occasion she has expressed opinions which are contrary to that of what is expected of temple attending members. She should just be consistent. If she says she has a temple recommend, she has told her bishop that she sustains the prophet as the head of the Church on earth who is the only one who holds the keys of the kingdom. Then is she says on the board that the prophet does not receive revelation and different from any other person, there is an inconsistency.

She should be willing to say which she believes. Otherwise, it is what is called "talking about of both sides of your mouth." No one is trying to tell her how to live. Just asking her to be upfront with us.

You overstep your stewardship, charity. At no point are you ever going to be in a position to call me to repentence (which is what you're trying to do). You don't have the right calling, and you certainly don't have the right gender.

More to the point, the second question is regarding sustaining our leaders. I do indeed sustain our leaders. I just don't revere them, or worship them, or think they actually have a direct line to God. I question their wisdom, definitely question their decisions, and scrutinize every word they publish. Because that's what I'm supposed to do. Were I to accept what they say in a knee-jerk fashion, blindly following what they say simply because they're the ones who said it, I would be under condemnation.

You need to worry about yourself, charity, and remember that your stewardship and inspiration does not extend to me. My TR is current and legit. Get used to it.

[_harmony]

The point is that people make claims to legitimacy so their opinions will carry weight. Remember Palmer with his "Insiders's View.. ." book. He used the word insider so people would think he really knew what he was talking about.

Harmony says she is a temple attending LDS. She is claiming a sort of "insider" status. People will look at her posts and make judgements about her posts based on that. Her claim to speak on any LDS doctrine or practice is given more weight. If that is not a clear statement of her position, then it is not being upfront.

She can live her life anyway she choses, which she is obviously doing. I don't know her. I don't know where she lives. I don't say anything to her ward members. All she is is an anonymous poaster on board critical of LDS.

My "weight" is not predicated on my TR status. Any "weight" I carry here is predicated on my opinions. My "insider" status is useful only if it serves to provoke someone to actually giving some thought to the subject at hand. I am what I am: a TR carrying, dual calling holding, active member of the LDS church whose views do not always coincide with the views of our leaders... and who isn't afraid to let that be known.

Just because I don't agree with everything Pres Hinckley says doesn't mean I don't sustain him as prophet. Just because I think his priorities are wrong and I think he could be doing a lot more to alleviate the suffering in the world than he's currently doing doesn't mean I think he's not God's prophet. Just because I question where the money goes doesn't mean I think he's padding his own pocket. That just means I think things should be done differently. And I'm not averse to offering my advice. He doesn't have to take it.

What I find interesting, though, is the number of times we've had discussions about something on these boards, and shortly thereafter we start hearing about it in conference or we see a change in policy or focus. Amazing what us little mice can do, isn't it? This current discussion is a case in point. We've been discussing "principle" for a few years, and now guess what? Voila! "Principle" has been changed.

[_Jason Bourne]

That's because they're just men and they don't talk to God directly anymore than anyone else does. They see through a dark glass just like the rest of us.

You might want to talk to the bishop about that on your next temple recommend interview when you get to Question #2.

They are just men. Fallible men, as are all of us. But they can and do talk to God directly on occasion. We can talk to God, too, but he won't tell us anything that doesn't pertain to us individually.

Question 2: Do you have faith and a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of his role as savior and redeemer?

Not sure this applies. Did you mean question 4?

Now Charity, please answer my question. How many things can a fallible prophet get wrong and still remain a prophet?

[_Jason Bourne]

Yet on more than one occasion she has expressed opinions which are contrary to that of what is expected of temple attending members. She should just be consistent. If she says she has a temple recommend, she has told her bishop that she sustains the prophet as the head of the Church on earth who is the only one who holds the keys of the kingdom. Then is she says on the board that the prophet does not receive revelation and different from any other person, there is an inconsistency

.


I don't know Charity. I am starting to doubt that you hold a TR. You certainly did not know what question 2 is.

[_sunstoned]

Charity,

Like it or not, the teaching of Lamanite = Native American as been a core belief of the church. It is not just 150 years of Prophets teachings, it is also in canonized scripture. Do a search in the D&C for "Lamanite", and in every instance it is used to reference native Americans. Not just some, but all. So, is the D&C not correct?

[_Runtu]

Charity,

Like it or not, the teaching of Lamanite = Native American as been a core belief of the church. It is not just 150 years of Prophets teachings, it is also in canonized scripture. Do a search in the D&C for "Lamanite", and in every instance it is used to reference native Americans. Not just some, but all. So, is the D&C not correct?

Maybe it was just God's personal opinion. ;)