Still want to fight about the intro?

[_Ray A]

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.

Have you referred them to your posts here? Let's face it, harmony, if your views were really known by the leaders (Scratch's too), you would last about 2.5 seconds in the Church. That's why you post anonymously. Your fear isn't about being "stalked", primarily, it's about being excommunicated.

To you and Scratch: At least David Wright had the guts to put his name to what he wrote, and paid for it!

Why are you and Scratch so ashamed of what you write? You can run, but you can't hide.

1 Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen together.
2 For verily the voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated.
3 And the rebellious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their iniquities shall be spoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed.
4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.
5 And they shall go forth and none shall stay them, for I the Lord have commanded them.

No, harmony, not even you can "stay" them.

[_harmony]

I spoke in sacrament meeting less than a year ago, Ray. The bishop was in my home last Sunday. I am not required to lay my inspiration and integrity aside in order to be a member of this church. And luckily my local leaders don't require that. My interpretation of the gospel is firmly grounded in both the canon and the prophets. I can't help it if my inspiration doesn't always coincide with our leaders', but since I don't call them publically to repentence, they have nothing to complain about. I comment on their decisions, their actions, and their words, not their persons. You won't find me ridiculing them for their looks, their weight, or their taste in clothes. You will find me wondering about their decisions, when those decisions are diametrically in opposition to the stated agenda of the church.

I'm not sure why you think you know more about my situation than I do, but I'm the one who went through 6 months of obscene phone calls, I'm the one whose daughter was stalked at college, I'm the one whose life was threatened after posting with my real name on the boards many years ago. Don't tell me why I remain anonymous; I already know why and it has nothing to do with an abstract fear and everything to do with a very real fear.

[_Sethbag]

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. ;)

God only speaks as God when he's acting like a God. At all other times, he's speaking as a man. :-)

[_beastie]

Charity:

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.

Ray:

Have you referred them to your posts here? Let's face it, harmony, if your views were really known by the leaders (Scratch's too), you would last about 2.5 seconds in the Church. That's why you post anonymously. Your fear isn't about being "stalked", primarily, it's about being excommunicated.

I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to publicly thank Charity and Ray for exposing the lie often propogated at MAD, namely, that the LDS church is an extremely liberal and open-minded organization, whose members have the freedom to believe what they will within a wide range.

[_beastie]

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.

The paradigm of revelation that Charity and many other Mormons have set up reminds me of the child's game "Mother May I"?

Apparently, God not only suffers from an easily wounded ego, but is also obsessive compulsive/anal, and can't tolerate uppity humans who do not follow certain prescribed steps.

[_truth dancer]

Funny...

There are those members who have asserted each member is entitled to receive their own individual personal revelation/confirmation concerning any teaching/doctrine of the church, and yet when members DO indeed listen to their personal inspiration/revelation/conscience, and it disagrees with the Brethren, all of a sudden they are not worthy to be a member? They are sinful, or they didn't ask the right question, or they asked more than once, or they used the wrong words, or they were receiving information from the wrong source, or they didn't ask with enough intent.... or something. (sigh)

~dancer~

[_charity]

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.

I don't have access to a CHI, but as I recall #2 is about sustaining the prophet, and #4 is about the law of chastity. But it has been a while. Now that TR's are for 2 years, instead of one, maybe I didn't remember the order as well as I thought.

[_charity]

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.

Because there was something to be done, Seth. Very different from a couple of words which really change nothing at all. Now that we have "among" instead of "principal" what do you think we are going to go out and do? What part of the CHI needs to be changed. What new program do we need? What part of the scriptural canon is going to be changed?

See how insignificant this is?

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.

It started on a day in early spring of 1820. God didn't come to Joseph Smith, UNTIL Joseph asked a question. There was a pattern established ealry in the history of the Church. Joseph asked a question about baptism. John the Baptist appeared. Joseph asked and a revelation was given.

[ Disgusting remarks deleted by me. Asking about evolution, Zarahemla, and the sealed portion of the plates.]

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.

And what is the expected change in what we are supposed to do with these bits of knowledge? How is any answer to a question about evolution going to change the lives of members? How is knowing the location of Zarahemla going to make one bit of difference in getting into the Celestial Kingdom? And about the sealed portion of the plates, that question was already answered by Nephi, when he made an accomodation for the 116 pages being lost.

If you have ever sat in the presence of the Prophet and the apostles, you would have heard their witnesses to God's answer to their prayers.

[_charity]

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?

The change doesn't say what you think it does. The old phrase was: "were destroyed, except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new introduction says the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

The new word STILL says that the Lamanites are in the ancestry of the American Indians. ALL the American Indians. It just clears up the little bit of confusion that the word "principal" causes among people who aren't very well educated. "Principal" means most important, not "majority of the DNA" as those less educated tended to think.

But do you see anywhere in the statement "Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians"to mean that there aren't any American Indians who don't have Lamanite ancestors?

[_the road to hana]

It started on a day in early spring of 1820. God didn't come to Joseph Smith, UNTIL Joseph asked a question. There was a pattern established ealry in the history of the Church. Joseph asked a question about baptism. John the Baptist appeared. Joseph asked and a revelation was given.

Charity, are you able to put enough distance between yourself and this statement to see what red flags about it on its face?