Making Covenants

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Interestingly, the current First Presidency, Presiding Bishopric, Ensign Peak Advisors and Kirton McConkie have all breached their covenants. Without any censure for doing so. By their example your protestations in support of covenants are rendered irrelevant. It’s clear you don’t need to keep your covenants.

Mistakes were made. This is not the first time. Mistakes, however, do not negate the opportunity to repent. The need to repent. That is the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We ALL have need of a repentance. You. Me. Everyone.

Not that everyone takes advantage of doing so.

Even if the motives of the leaders were sound and above board, the implementation of shell companies and less than transparent reporting procedures snowballed/escalated into that which proved over time to be unsound business practices as far as the SEC was concerned.

Those practices are now curtailed. Hopefully, lesson learned.

You mentioned that it is not necessary for me or any other member of the church to keep the covenants we have made with God. I’m not sure that I ought to trust your judgement on that count. Well, actually I am sure. You are not to be trusted as you have broken yours. Assuming that at one time you had made sacred covenants.

IHAQ, we don’t make covenants with the church. Covenants are between us and God. There’s a difference.

As I’m sure you can see/realize.

Regards,
MG

Notice how MG parrots Mormon leadership’s passive voice in order to move those responsible for their illicit behavior away from their acts. This is dishonest and cowardly behavior.

From Stig:

“Intentionally creating 13 substance-free LLCs to conceal money? Check.

Creating false addresses for the 13 substance free LLCs? Check.

Intentionally finding 13 employees with common names to avoid fruitful social media searches to be 'managers' of the LLCs? Check.

Making those employees commit perjury by signing documents they didn't understand for years? Check.

The First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric reviewing and approving each step in the scheme? Check.

Blaming the lawyers who advised you when you got caught? Check.

Legal or not, ill-intentioned or not, these actions are unethical and indisputably dishonest. Church leadership ignored their own teachings and moral duties. End of story.“

MG constantly shills for his corporate overlords, no matter how crappy their behavior is. THE FIRST PRESIDENCY DID THIS. PERIOD. FULL STOP. STOP LYING FOR THESE PEOPLE MENTAL MIDGET.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

I’ve been reading a book by Kerry Muhlestein whom many of you are probably familiar with. In this book he lays out the importance of making covenants with God.

Speaking from a Christian point of view that is an incorrect assumption, using two verses from the book of John:
John 1:12 says "Yet to all who did receive him [Jesus], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."
John 8:38 says "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires"

Having been born into sin our father is the devil, not God, and it requires faith in Jesus to become a child of God.

Runewell,
I don’t know how familiar you are with the doctrines of the LDS Church in regards to covenants (the topic of this thread before some folks went on a derail), but here is a recent talk given at BYU where the speaker (Tracy Browning of the General Primary Presidency) gives a short synopsis regarding the importance of covenants to members of the church.

Begin a bit after the 19:00 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mxed4z2Fqs

The talk as a whole will give you a fairly good introduction to the church and its teachings concerning Christ if you’re interested. I don’t know what your background is.

By the way, I began his thread and would like it to stay on topic. There is another thread where critics can vent in regards to the church and the SEC. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
MG

[IHAQ]

Speaking from a Christian point of view that is an incorrect assumption, using two verses from the book of John:
John 1:12 says "Yet to all who did receive him [Jesus], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."
John 8:38 says "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires"

Having been born into sin our father is the devil, not God, and it requires faith in Jesus to become a child of God.

Runewell,
I don’t know how familiar you are with the doctrines of the LDS Church in regards to covenants (the topic of this thread before some folks went on a derail), but here is a recent talk given at BYU where the speaker (Tracy Browning of the General Primary Presidency) gives a short synopsis regarding the importance of covenants to members of the church.

Begin a bit after the 19:00 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mxed4z2Fqs

The talk as a whole will give you a fairly good introduction to the church and its teachings concerning Christ if you’re interested. I don’t know what your background is.

By the way, I began his thread and would like it to stay on topic. There is another thread where critics can vent in regards to the church and the SEC. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
MG

Can you explain how you think your response to "runewell" addresses what they have said? Can you also explain why you think their post is off topic and a critical "vent"?

Thanks in advance.

[MG 2.0]

Runewell,
I don’t know how familiar you are with the doctrines of the LDS Church in regards to covenants (the topic of this thread before some folks went on a derail), but here is a recent talk given at BYU where the speaker (Tracy Browning of the General Primary Presidency) gives a short synopsis regarding the importance of covenants to members of the church.

Begin a bit after the 19:00 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mxed4z2Fqs

The talk as a whole will give you a fairly good introduction to the church and its teachings concerning Christ if you’re interested. I don’t know what your background is.

By the way, I began his thread and would like it to stay on topic. There is another thread where critics can vent in regards to the church and the SEC. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
MG

Can you explain how you think your response to "runewell" addresses what they have said? Can you also explain why you think their post is off topic and a critical "vent"?

Thanks in advance.

Sure. My interests aligned with my opening post. The thread was bearing off in other directions. Not that I didn’t have anything to say that didn’t also align with the SEC/church controversy. I made my comments on the thread that was appropriate to that topic.

If you have any thoughts regarding the trend of dialogue expressed in my opening post, feel free to contribute.

Regards,
MG

[IHAQ]

Can you explain how you think your response to "runewell" addresses what they have said? Can you also explain why you think their post is off topic and a critical "vent"?

Thanks in advance.

Sure. My interests aligned with my opening post. The thread was bearing off in other directions. Not that I didn’t have anything to say that didn’t also align with the SEC/church controversy. I made my comments on the thread that was appropriate to that topic.

If you have any thoughts regarding the trend of dialogue expressed in my opening post, feel free to contribute.

Regards,
MG

You haven’t answered the questions posed in any direct, or even remotely direct, way. So I’ll ask you again - Can you explain how you think your response to "runewell" addresses what they have said? Can you also explain why you think their post is off topic and a critical "vent"?

Please specifically address each of my questions and in your response, reference the parts of runewell’s that support your assertions about it.

Thanks in advance.

[MG 2.0]

Runewell,
I don’t know how familiar you are with the doctrines of the LDS Church in regards to covenants (the topic of this thread before some folks went on a derail), but here is a recent talk given at BYU where the speaker (Tracy Browning of the General Primary Presidency) gives a short synopsis regarding the importance of covenants to members of the church.

Begin a bit after the 19:00 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mxed4z2Fqs

The talk as a whole will give you a fairly good introduction to the church and its teachings concerning Christ if you’re interested. I don’t know what your background is.

By the way, I began his thread and would like it to stay on topic. There is another thread where critics can vent in regards to the church and the SEC. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
MG

Can you explain how you think your response to "runewell" addresses what they have said? Can you also explain why you think their post is off topic and a critical "vent"?

Thanks in advance.

runewell’s scriptural references are limited in scope. I referred him/her to a part of a talk given recently which gives an introduction concerning the importance that covenants play in the church’s teachings concerning salvation/exaltation. Much more can be learned by him/her, or you and I, simply by accessing the Bible and reading the many references having to do with covenantal relationships with God.

runewell’s post was not off topic. I was referring to the posts that were coming up dealing with SEC/Church

Are we getting a bit nit picky?

Again, I would ask you if you have anything to add in regards to my opening post.

Do you see a loving God presenting opportunities for His children to enter into covenantal partnerships as being something worth investigating and looking into? Free will is involved as we decide whether or not we want to go to the effort and then possibly make sacrifices of our time and talents as we make and receive promises from deity.

Or do you see yourself as simply being the critic and being critical?

Regards,
MG

[IHAQ]

Can you explain how you think your response to "runewell" addresses what they have said? Can you also explain why you think their post is off topic and a critical "vent"?

Thanks in advance.

runewell’s scriptural references are limited in scope. I referred him/her to a part of a talk given recently which gives an introduction concerning the importance that covenants play in the church’s teachings concerning salvation/exaltation. Much more can be learned by him/her, or you and I, simply by accessing the Bible and reading the many references having to do with covenantal relationships with God.

runewell’s post was not off topic. I was referring to the posts that were coming up dealing with SEC/Church

Okay, so you owe runewell an apology for your reply where you accused them of being off topic and of having a critical vent. Neither of which was true. You're now trying to shift it to say that your reply was aimed at someone other than runewell - so apologise and delete your reply to runewell. Then reply to the post you claim to have been responding to...

Are we getting a bit nit picky?

No. You called runewell's post off topic and a critical vent. When called out on that you've backtracked to say it wasn't off topic and that you were replying to someone else. Do you read anything before splattering the board with your inanities?

Again, I would ask you if you have anything to add in regards to my opening post.

Do you see a loving God presenting opportunities for His children to enter into covenantal partnerships as being something worth investigating and looking into? Free will is involved as we decide whether or not we want to go to the effort and then possibly make sacrifices of our time and talents as we make and receive promises from deity.

Or do you see yourself as simply being the critic and being critical?

Regards,
MG

Stop trying to move away from your ridiculous and offensive response to runewell, you're not getting away with it this time. Go back and give runewell's response the time and effort it deserves. Respond the their points properly. It's your thread, so show that you want genuine discussion. Or flee the board like normal when you get yourself into a mess. <shrug>

Thanks in advance.
Regards.

[MG 2.0]

runewell’s scriptural references are limited in scope. I referred him/her to a part of a talk given recently which gives an introduction concerning the importance that covenants play in the church’s teachings concerning salvation/exaltation. Much more can be learned by him/her, or you and I, simply by accessing the Bible and reading the many references having to do with covenantal relationships with God.

runewell’s post was not off topic. I was referring to the posts that were coming up dealing with SEC/Church

Okay, so you owe runewell an apology for your reply where you accused them of being off topic and of having a critical vent. Neither of which was true. You're now trying to shift it to say that your reply was aimed at someone other than runewell - so apologise and delete your reply to runewell. Then reply to the post you claim to have been responding to...

Are we getting a bit nit picky?

No. You called runewell's post off topic and a critical vent. When called out on that you've backtracked to say it wasn't off topic and that you were replying to someone else. Do you read anything before splattering the board with your inanities?

Again, I would ask you if you have anything to add in regards to my opening post.

Do you see a loving God presenting opportunities for His children to enter into covenantal partnerships as being something worth investigating and looking into? Free will is involved as we decide whether or not we want to go to the effort and then possibly make sacrifices of our time and talents as we make and receive promises from deity.

Or do you see yourself as simply being the critic and being critical?

Regards,
MG

Stop trying to move away from your ridiculous and offensive response to runewell, you're not getting away with it this time. Go back and give runewell's response the time and effort it deserves. Respond the their points properly. It's your thread, so show that you want genuine discussion. Or flee the board like normal when you get yourself into a mess. <shrug>

Thanks in advance.
Regards.

My. Gosh. IHAQ. Will you please read for comprehension? You’ve got it all wrong. Just to begin with I never called runewell’s post off topic. And it goes on from there…

Would you care to discuss the topic at hand?

I thought not.

Sheesh. My fourth graders had better reading comprehension than you apparently do.

Sorry to be so blunt. But you amaze me with your apparent lack of common sense.

Nice derail, by the way. Common strategy with some folks around here. Not all.

Oh well. Have a nice day.

Regards,
MG

[IHAQ]

Okay, so you owe runewell an apology for your reply where you accused them of being off topic and of having a critical vent. Neither of which was true. You're now trying to shift it to say that your reply was aimed at someone other than runewell - so apologise and delete your reply to runewell. Then reply to the post you claim to have been responding to...

No. You called runewell's post off topic and a critical vent. When called out on that you've backtracked to say it wasn't off topic and that you were replying to someone else. Do you read anything before splattering the board with your inanities?

Stop trying to move away from your ridiculous and offensive response to runewell, you're not getting away with it this time. Go back and give runewell's response the time and effort it deserves. Respond the their points properly. It's your thread, so show that you want genuine discussion. Or flee the board like normal when you get yourself into a mess. <shrug>

Thanks in advance.
Regards.

My. Gosh. IHAQ. Will you please read for comprehension? You’ve got it all wrong. Just to begin with I never called runewell’s post off topic. And it goes on from there…

Would you care to discuss the topic at hand?

I thought not.

Sheesh. My fourth graders had better reading comprehension than you apparently do.

Sorry to be so blunt. But you amaze me with your apparent lack of common sense.

Nice derail, by the way. Common strategy with some folks around here. Not all.

Oh well. Have a nice day.

Regards,
MG

Now you know how everyone who interacts with you feels!

[MG 2.0]

Repost of my post to runewell. Make what you will of it. I will most definitely reemphasize that I wasn’t treating him/her according to the inclinations that seem to be running your thought processes.

I’ve been reading a book by Kerry Muhlestein whom many of you are probably familiar with. In this book he lays out the importance of making covenants with God.

Speaking from a Christian point of view that is an incorrect assumption, using two verses from the book of John:
John 1:12 says "Yet to all who did receive him [Jesus], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."
John 8:38 says "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires"

Having been born into sin our father is the devil, not God, and it requires faith in Jesus to become a child of God.

I then said:

Scripture chase time, huh?

Nah. That could go on forever.

But I value your belief in Jesus/God and willingness to try and follow in His footsteps in righteousness.

Best wishes to you. Lord love you brother.

On the next page I said:

I don’t know how familiar you are with the doctrines of the LDS Church in regards to covenants (the topic of this thread before some folks went on a derail), but here is a recent talk given at BYU where the speaker (Tracy Browning of the General Primary Presidency) gives a short synopsis regarding the importance of covenants to members of the church.

Begin a bit after the 19:00 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mxed4z2Fqs

The talk as a whole will give you a fairly good introduction to the church and its teachings concerning Christ if you’re interested. I don’t know what your background is.

By the way, I began his thread and would like it to stay on topic. There is another thread where critics can vent in regards to the church and the SEC. Thanks in advance.

The highlighted section refers to those that were coming into the thread wanting to discuss the SEC/church controversy. I was NOT referring to runewell.

Again, IHAQ, check your reading comprehension. Your interpretation/accusations are unwarranted.

If I offended you when I said earlier:

You mentioned that it is not necessary for me or any other member of the church to keep the covenants we have made with God. I’m not sure that I ought to trust your judgement on that count. Well, actually I am sure. You are not to be trusted as you have broken yours. Assuming that at one time you had made sacred covenants.

IHAQ, we don’t make covenants with the church. Covenants are between us and God. There’s a difference.

As I’m sure you can see/realize.

I apologize. This may have been the wrong thing to say to you not knowing what your experience was with the church in the past. It may well be that you didn’t make any covenants. And thus there were none to break. I simply don’t know for sure. I may have been a bit presumptuous.

I honestly don’t know for a fact whether you’ve ever been a member of the church. I may have jumped the gun.

That’s the thing though. There are not a few folks that really haven’t divulged much about themselves except for the fact that they have some degree of either hate or abhorrence towards the LDS Church and/or it’s leaders.

Regards,
MG