Sunday, June 8, 2014

Uncomfortable God

Previously: Vengeance And The Latter-Day Saint

These are interesting times to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Untold thousands of faithful, believing members are now becoming disillusioned with Church leadership.  This disconnect between the membership and those at the top is fueled by the growing observation that the teachings of Christ are not always reflected in the words and actions of some who purport to be His representatives.

Recently, on a Mormon-themed Facebook page, a frustrated member gave voice to her concerns, and the response was nothing short of phenomenal. If a cheering standing ovation could be translated to the printed word, that would be the best way to describe the reaction of those who read her remarkable words.  Her essay has already been shared far and wide, because her concerns are the concerns of many other devoted latter-day Saints who see their Church being virtually stolen out from under them; transformed into something alarmingly different than it was in the beginning -indeed, different even than in recent memory. The author has graciously permitted me to share her words here, so I present them now as this month's Guest Post.

As I and others have discovered, some in leadership positions within the modern LDS Church have not reacted kindly to those lowly members who have drawn attention to the dichotomy between the Church today and the one founded through Joseph Smith.  Since not everyone is in a position to endure the very real persecution that can result when reporting reality within this community, I am omitting the real name of the author and just calling her "Cate."  I look forward to reading your reactions in the comment section below.
  -Rock Waterman

                                                    Uncomfortable God
                                                                                                     By Cate

Last April 5th, I gathered around the television with my family to watch General Conference. As active, temple recommend holding members of the church, it’s what we do every April and October. It’s not just a weekend off for me. I’ve actually had a love affair with General Conference since I was a child sitting in a darkened chapel, taking copious notes in spiral bound notebooks I could barely see to write on. The outpouring of powerful emotions and positive messages filled me with a special kind of pride in belonging to the church. My church.

It’s been years since I had to drive across town and spend two solid days in “Sunday clothes” to enjoy conference weekend. With the decades have come the wisdom that every talk isn’t meant for me, that every speaker won’t speak to the particulars of my place along the path of life, and that some Church leaders will misspeak to the degree that talks have to be edited after delivery prior to being printed in Church magazines. Some talks have even been rerecorded, the modified audiovisual presentations supplanting the original. For the most part, I’m just fine with that. The general leadership of the Church, for all the adulation they receive from adoring church members, are fallible human beings. I don’t expect their talks to be perfect.

But I also don’t expect their talks to be dripping with sarcasm and condescension; nor do I expect, with all the very real issues plaguing humanity, for them to target men of straw.  Sadly that’s what I heard this past April 5th.

To put it mildly, I was disappointed by Elder Holland's talk, "The Cost – and Blessings – of Discipleship".  As I listened to Elder Holland, normally a conference favorite, I was taken by how angry and sarcastic his tone was. I was saddened by how targeted his words seemed at certain groups within the church who are grappling with tough issues. Loaded words like "advocacy," "patriarchal," "provincial," and "bigoted" sprinkled throughout the talk seemed to point squarely at families who lobby for civil rights for their gay children, women who struggle with the hierarchical inequity in Church structure, and people like me, who see love -known in the scriptures as charity- as a divine power which never faileth.

Elder Holland came across as angry and condescending. Part of my takeaway,  I'm sure, results from the fact that I've dealt with an increasing number of church members recently who take my pleas for tolerance and compassion as "condoning sin" rather than an invitation to win through charity rather than compulsion.

As I listened to Elder Holland, I had the sinking feeling that his words would catalyze the most judgmental voices in the church, promoting a spirit of division and justifying intolerance. This intuition has been validated numerous times in the two months since the conference, both in church classes and online, as I’ve heard church members define faithfulness to God not in terms of what we stand for, but primarily in terms of what we stand against. President Uchtdorf’s big tent vision, which allows for imperfect members who grapple with complex issues, was instantly replaced with a dogmatic return to lockstep religiosity.

As I write this, I am aware that Elder Holland may not have meant his talk for me. He may have intended to condemn “the world” using the popular ‘us vs. them’ paradigm promulgated by religious leaders ad infinitum. The problem is that when you paint stark black and white lines like he did, those of us who have fought our way through life’s gray are going to feel the brush strokes.

Contrary to cultural mythos, it’s not because we are guilty and hate hard truths. It’s because, as was the case with Job, we’ve lived lives of hard truth and we’ve experienced the complexities of mortality firsthand. We’ve seen beneath the superficial skin of simple dichotomies and have felt the blood of our belief pour from us like water from a sword pierced side. In those forsaken moments, we found God, not a comfortable hand-drawn caricature designed to make us feel superior to others, but a fierce and loving God who demands every last shred of who we are until we are left with no alternative than to cry out “It is finished.”

There is a cost of discipleship. I know it. I’ve paid it. I pay it every single day. And having traversed my own wine press, however incomparable to that of my exemplar, I found a God who was radically more interested in my ability to love my neighbor in spite of his or her fallen state than to draw lines which exclude. I found a God whose love is transformative and whose love, when manifest through me, is a corrective force needing little, if any, accompanying condemnation.  Precisely because I found that God, I found Elder Holland’s words a harsh and demoralizing oversimplification of what I and so many others have experienced:
"Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.
"Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of 'comfortable' God. Really? It was He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like 'comfortable' doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?"
As I heard these words, intoned with such condescension, I was left to wonder, "Who are these people Elder Holland is referring to?"  I don't know them. I see people around me who are desperate to make this world a better place, myself included. People who refuse to hate others for their sins, often in contrast to the examples they have seen in the church.

I see people who want to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and imprisoned with more than a plate of cookies and a warm casserole, all while their Church leaders pray over the opening of law offices, dedicate banks, build shopping malls, cater to wealthy elk hunters, and buy up the state of FloridaI see good people frustrated with being called to repentance by an institution which acts in ways that are sometimes baffling when compared to the words and life of Christ. I see a corporation that has built up a culture through correlated texts and copyrighted media which prioritizes unthinking conformity over true discipleship.

If Church leaders think we are dancing around Woodstock looking for flowers to put in our hair, they are precisely what Elder Holland denies - hopelessly out of touch. Contrary to the insinuation that we, who proclaim an answer in love, seek a comfortable god, I’m disgusted that my Church makes membership so damned comfortable.

Other churches in my town don't own malls. They run soup kitchens. They don't just sponsor BSA troops, they hold AA meetings. These churches help felons find jobs, sponsor immigrants and help their members adopt children from war torn nations. Churches in my city have homeless ministries, outreach programs for the elderly and impoverished, and their women gather to pour out their hearts in prayer for the suffering that goes on around the world. They actively fight against human trafficking, they consciously support ethical trade and are aware of the price paid by third world workers to support a first world lifestyle. They speak against injustice, proclaim peace, and create welcoming environments for people who "sin differently."

They do these things week after week, year after year.

At my church, 90% of what we do is incestuous service; we make dinners for each other, we visit the sick within our own congregations, we go to the temple for our own families. On occasion, we have a community service "project" or the Relief Society makes prescribed hygiene and newborn kits from downloadable patterns available on the Church website. We rarely see the faces of those who most need our service. As a congregation, we are so insulated. So aloof. So free to simply donate money as we plan our next family vacation, shop for a new "modest" dress, or call a plastic surgeon to schedule a mommy makeover.

Is the Church doing significant good in the world's poorest spots? Among inmates? With victims of domestic abuse? I'll have to take the Newsroom’s word for it. Even BYU T.V.’s between conference session media blitz on world affairs shows birthday celebrations and temple dedications, seemingly  prioritizing those events over our emergency response project/PR endeavors. We need hands that help every day. Not just after a storm. But every single day because the world is broken every single day. Because even in our own church, LDS children, a sickening number of them, go to bed hungry every single day.

I assure you, my walk through the gray complexities of life has made me terribly uncomfortable.

And yet we spend so much time on "sin management" at church. We spend so much time instilling fear in the dangers of interacting with the world Christ was sent to save that we have created a religion that only plays defense, as if followers of Christ could live out their faith pointing fingers at their enemies from inside a bunker.

No wonder our people have such problems with porn, divorce, abuse, vanity, and personal sins. We are so busy measuring the borders of our own garments that we can’t see past our own cloaks. For that matter, we have set such a low bar for discipleship that our good people are hopelessly underwhelmed by the dogma of white shirts and multiple piercings and our mediocre members are celebrating the self-mastery of 75% home teaching and being able to efficiently regurgitate an assigned General Conference talk from the pulpit, when invited to speak in sacrament meeting every few years.

We are pitifully uninspired. So yes. Let’s talk about a comfortable God. One who looks on approvingly while we grow in wealth as God’s children in Sudan go hungry.
         

Maybe this is why Brigham Young warned of the dangers of affluence.

Further, that village love-in, it's pretty damn hard to organize. You know why? Because it's easier to whisper gossip about a "sinner" than to take her hand and sit down together at a meal as fellow mortal pilgrims. It's easier to kick out a gay child and denounce his "choice" than to relearn how to love him and subsequently acknowledge the worth of the people he brings into your life. It’s easier to exclude than it is to live with the humble recognition that God can and does work in the lives of all people, even when they don't live the standards found within For the Strength of Youth.

And those are the kinds of behaviors justified among our people when you sarcastically dis-empower central godly attributes like love, the power which effectuated the atonement and which never fails. It’s what happens when you relegate mercy, gentleness, and the faith that God knows what He's doing in each of our lives to a hippie mantra. It’s what happens when you speak as if life and the Spirit are less effective teachers than pulpit pounding brimstone. The love-in for that uncomfortable God is awfully hard to organize in a culture that says we prefer our children dead than defiled.

And you know something else? That village love-in isn't the orgy you're imagining.

It's a feast. And a lot of people who've been invited are too busy doing meaningless church work to fit it into their schedule.

Or maybe they are too 'ritually pure' to sit beside the unwashed and unwanted who are being called out of the pews by the loving, forgiving, merciful voice of Jesus the Christ. I'll tell you this – a lot of folks are missing out as they travel the dusty Jericho road on their trek back and forth to church meetings and temple worship while ignoring the bleeding and broken. They are ever hastening the work of recruitment and never coming face to face with Christ in the least of these. And yet they are wondering why the fonts are dry.

How will it be, I wonder, when we reach the great beyond ready to celebrate with ancestors whose saving ordinances we’ve performed only to find ourselves instead viewing, gathered to Abraham’s bosom, a long line of those who sat outside our gates, ignored, from whom we must first plead and obtain forgiveness? Are we so myopic that we believe God applauds our ritual performances while the world outside the temple walls groans in desperate need of our attention? Oh how my God makes me increasingly uncomfortable.

I have seen the Church move in fits and starts toward more engagement with the world outside. Toward healing the world instead of just trying to fill pews. Certainly, I have seen individual members follow Christ into the lives of social lepers and the rejects. I know I am not alone in feeling the disquieting discomfort of a God who tenderly invites, “Come follow me.”

But I also know that most of that divine work is done outside the structure of the very Church which requires all our time, talents, and energy. I wonder when the institution of the Church will stop filing legal briefs and follow her members into the dusty streets of this world to touch and be touched by the broken and unclean? Perhaps the surge of power from hem to hand would heal us all.

My God calls me out into the streets. He leaves me restless with the ache to heal and be healed. It is a throbbing, relentless discomfort that compels me to do His bidding. And when I heed His call, lives are changed. They are transformed without the need for formalized discussions or new member checklists. They are changed because the good news is just that good.

The gospel doesn't spread by force -certainly not by forced discussion. It spreads by fascination.

And most of our people, having been fed a steady diet of pre-digested milk, are pathetically nonchalant. Starved for a gospel rich in transformative unity with God, they are uninspired by the lackluster offering of platitudes and proscriptions. They are wandering toward agnosticism, atheism, and other churches, not because they are unable to believe, but because the anemic offerings of their church experience have convinced them that God is not present at our self-congratulatory "historic" meetings or in our proclamations drafted by legal teams, however well they poll.

The slow but steady pioneer trail leading out through the chapel doors ought to be noticeable. But if it isn't, just wait a generation.

Those of us who remain seated due to inertia or in the hopes that the vibrant church we've read about in the increasingly available unvarnished tales of our father's faith are talking about things that matter. Things more pertinent to God than promoting modesty to four-year-olds in a Church magazine, things more awe-inspiring than a God who can only conjure warm fuzzies as a witness, things more restorative than endless hours in the pews. And our children are listening. Our children will have no memory of an uncorrelated church. They will see only another religious institution, patting itself on the back in the tradition of Pharisee forebears. A religion proclaiming its chosenness from within its insulated walls.

But you know what? There is good news. In fact, there is great news. This feast, our village love-in, it isn't ending any time soon. Its attendance is growing as more and more frustrated church members across all Christendom relinquish the bondage of certainty and embrace the hope and mystery that is the incomprehensible love of God. It swells with every realization that all men are our brothers and that being chosen is a call to action not an award for merit or the election of a lucky birth. The seats at the feast fill steadily as God fills us with faith in our fellowmen and empathy born of the solidarity of mortal sojourn and we are unified in the Eucharist of abandoning the fear that God will stop loving us "if".

Yes, there is good news indeed. Good news about the feast. And I have it on the only authority that matters - He's saving you a seat.

Postscript: Even though I was disheartened by Elder Holland’s talk, I continue to love this man and recognize the challenging position he holds as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I cannot not love him. My uncomfortable God does not allow it.

                                                                     *****
A Note From Rock About Commenting:Again, I must remind my readers that all comments posting on this blog only as "Anonymous" will be deleted. I hate doing it, so please abide by this rule and spare me the angst.

I respect all reader's wishes to post anonymously, and you may continue to do so as long as at the beginning and/or end of your comment you use some type of unique identifier so that others can tell you from the hundreds of others who tend to post as "Anonymous." With so many commenting under the name "Anonymous," the conversations have become increasingly difficult to follow.  It has also become obvious that some of those posting anonymously are often among the most uncivil; rather than engage in intelligent arguments, some of these people tend to get quarrelsome.  A civil argument advances the dialogue; petty and immature attacks on other's views do not.

Please note that if you are concerned about your privacy, the drop-down feature that reads "Name/URL" already keeps you completely anonymous.  All you have to do is place whatever username you wish to go by in the "Name" box and ignore the URL part.

Those with Google, Yahoo, Wordpress, and other accounts can choose to post under those accounts, which helps to lead others to your own blog if you have one.

708 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 600 of 708   Newer›   Newest»
Friar Tuck said...

@BK stated:

"I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the scriptures are also just "black & white words written by men". All the scriptures we have are riddled with error and falsehoods, things contrary to the teachings of Christ, just like any other book written by men."

Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but Jesus never wrote any scripture, it was all written by other men, so where are the pure, unadulterated teachings of Christ that you are referencing?

And tell me why I should give more credence to the naysayers of the church rather than the leaders of the church? Arguable, the leaders have a traceable line of authority to fall back on, whereas the naysayers have no authority at all.

I appreciate your earnestness. Don't get me wrong, I believe the church has plenty of problems, and I do not follow it blindly. Rock, you, and many others here say things that contain truth. What I object to is the mutiny atmosphere that exists. Speaking out in public against the church is wrong, and the scriptures tell us how were are supposed to handle differences in the church.

Take Kate Kelly for example. She is coming out in open rebellion against the current teachings of the church and using the media to bolster her cause. Her, Dehlin, Tom Phillips, and many others take a private disciplinary matter and make it a public spectacle to gain attention. This is wrong, wrong, wrong, I don't care what anyone says.

I support your right to voice your opinion, and even though you and I don't agree, as far as I know you have not used the media to advertise your opinions save the comments on this blog.

37andholding said...

FTuck ,
Your last link just shows where your premise is based. Ya got it backwards! I really don't think you'd understand or I'd try to explain. Good luck on your journey. Watch for cracks under your feet! When you see them, start running!!!

Inspire said...

Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto [my other sheep], and, behold, they shall not deny that which you have received, but they shall build it up, and shall bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me. And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them. Therefore, I will unfold unto them this great mystery; For, behold, I will gather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if they will not harden their hearts; Yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the waters of life freely. Behold, this is my doctrine.

Gary Hunt said...

Friar Tuck,

I read the article you referenced. No wonder your ideas are so messed up. Scott's opinion shows his lack of understanding of the scriptures, which includes the concept of stewardship. He only quoted one part of the scriptures and took those verses out of context.

You keep refering to D&C 107 which contains the proper procedure to follow to get things corrected within the church. You are correct in this. I have tried this method. I have family and friends who have tried to follow D&C 107 to get problems resolved. Out of the dozens of times, of which I am personally aware, of members (active and faithful) trying to use D&C 107 ("the proper channels")to get problems resolved, there are only two instances where leaders who were contacted followed D&C 107. The remaining times the members were told either don't make a big deal about it (sweep it under the carpet), or how dare they question their leaders (bishops and stake presidents)and that they were the ones out of line and in some instances have been threatened with excommunication. Some of these people have written letters to the church in Salt Lake City and gotten the same treatment.

As I mentioned earlier, there have been two exceptions where there the leaders followed the proper procedures and the problem was corrected. However that was 25+ years ago.

These dozens of instances were serious in nature and not just minor issues. So, what would you advise me to tell these members? There concerns were legitimate. In some cases they fit into the catagory of ecclesiastical abuse.

In fact several of the members have suffered greatly because of these leaders. I'm talking great mental anguish which has lead to suicide attempts, mental illness, shunning because of gosip by these leaders even though they went to the person in private to resolve these issues, careers and reputations ruined!

Again I ask you, what do I tell them - what do they do when the proper channels fail?

Friar Tuck said...

Gary Hunt:

1. Appeal to a higher leader
2. Tell the Lord in prayer that you tried his system, and it didn't work for you.

However, I don't see how complaining on the internet will solve any problem, either, unless the object is to gain support in array against the church and to apply political pressure.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

ATTENTION READERS:
My friend Dana, who runs a blog called "Mormon Truth-Stranger Than Fiction" wants to hear your stories for possible publication on her site.

Go to the link below to get your story told:

http://mormontruth-strangerthanfiction.blogspot.com/2014/06/finding-greater-purpose-telling-your.html

nobody ever said...



I choose not to contend with those who do not sincerely want to gain an understanding. I am comfortable to allow those who willing choose to remain ignorant of truth, to continue down that path.

We are all at different places on our journey through life, trying to force someone out of a paradigm that gives them peace and security can cause great fear and discomfort. If their current state suits them, it suits me.

We only have to proclaim the truth, point out to people where they are in error, let them consider it, and decide weather or not they agree. But we do not have to "prove" anything to anyone that challenges us. It is a trap, an exercise in futility, It can not be done.



Gary Hunt said...

Friar Tuck,

Been there, done that. Now what?

BK said...

Friar Tuck,

You seem to be missing the point. There are no higher leaders to go to, for the pride and problems get worse the higher you go.

I have constantly seen the same thing that Gary talks about. Every Bishop or Stake President I've had for the past 30 years, probably more, as been unrighteous and far too prideful to listen or help. They always feel they know best and thus won't handle problems righteously.

I have found that higher up leaders almost always just support the lower ones they put in power.

And the system is 'not' the Lord's system, his true disciples wouldn't act like this and wouldn't support local leaders like this, nor would they tell people to not bother them.

But telling the Lord in prayer about your troubles is a good idea, for then at least he can direct you to have nothing to do with such a church and leaders.

And complaining on the internet solves a lot of problems, for it warns and protect others from falling for these leaders and being taken advantage of and their time and money taken from them and not used as it should be.

But it's useless to try to change the church or leaders though, one might as well go try to change the Catholic Church as well as the LDS Church. They may make some small changes because of inside or outside pressure but why waste your time on a false church that can never be a true church or led by Christ, anymore then the Catholic Church could become Christ's church.

Trying to change the LDS leaders and the Church is like Abinadi trying to get King Noah and his priests to repent. The best that may happen is you might awaken a leader or member here and there and get them to repent. But the top guys are not going to give up their power, perks or positions.

Christ will establish his own church when he comes again which will have nothing to do with any church on earth, including Brigham's LDS Church.

The best thing is just to separate from such false leaders and false churches and rely only on God and Christ.

Friar Tuck said...

@BK:

I'm missing the point? You just summed up everything I have been saying. I don't agree with all you said, but most. We are closer in thought than you think.

Friar Tuck said...

@Gary:

I am genuinely sorry to hear about the misfortunes you and your associates have suffered. The only decision left to you is to bow your head and stay in the church, or leave the church. To fight against the church is a waste of time.(in my opinion)

LDSDPer said...

@Gary,

I think Friar Tuck is the old Big Dave with whom I battled over race and the priesthood months, if not years, ago. He complained to Rock about my being a 'difficult woman' or something--

I am pretty sure Rock yawned.

He gets really upset when I 'don't answer' his questions, but he doesn't have to answer mine.

He brought up race. He told Rock in a post to him (but it is public) that he doesn't think the blacks should have the priesthood.

And now he has called me a racist.

Friar,

I am talking about you, yes. It does no good to talk TO you. But, to be fair, I am going to let you why I won't respond to you again.


I have no idea why you think those of *us* who regularly come on Rock's site are 'fighting' the church. You are absolutely using false accusations everywhere. I am fighting nobody, but you. And I'm working on repenting of it. I know I need to stop. I have been robbed of peace since beginning to talk to you. (You can grin now)

You are really an impossible person. You accuse people of things they are not doing and then you stand off and talk about how good you are, and you're going to forgive all of *us*.

I know there is no reasoning with you.

But you have learned how to push buttons.
You played all sorts of illogical word games with me last night about 'race'--

I can't talk to you, because you don't make sense. You kept bringing up D&C 107. I, by the way, had already been there and done that. Perhaps, and this is a sad thought, you have been broken by the church yourself and have lost your ability to feel sympathy or empathy for others. That is very sad. I don't know your story, but you seem to think everyone but yourself is ignorant.

I don't fight the church. I tiptoe around ALL my church leaders and most of my ward members. I dare not tell them anything of what I feel.

But I come here for fellowship. It's lonely being where I am.

I am afraid, Big Dave, er . . . Friar Tuck--

you wouldn't want to admit you were lonely. What are you doing on here? Are you trying to save those of *us* who aren't fighting anyone but whom you accuse of fighting the church?

It's a very strange place you have chosen for yourself.

By the way, you do have one point.

We told Father in Heaven that our family was being severely abused.

One of the leaders (years after coming and weeping and apologizing to me) died. The other one who never apologized is severely incapacitated. He had a very bright future. He was seen as a golden boy; he was a very young SP, and he had no time for our story.

I feel very badly about what has happened to these men. I have no idea whether or not it is coincidence; it certainly may be.

But you have tagged on this, "it doesn't do any good to fight the church" when nobody on here is fighting the church.

Guess what, Friar, er, Dave--

the church is too big for any of us to fight. But on here we can talk about our heartaches, something we cannot do at church anymore.

And I'm sorry you're so sad to hear that Rock's writing has kept a few vulnerable people I know IN the church.

What a deep disappointment that must be to you.

Now, you know, I have reasonable people I can talk to on here.

So this is the last thing I'm going to say to you. If you start screaming at me that I am a racist again (your caps) after I noticed that you didn't think the blacks should have the priesthood but never answered my question about Spencer W. Kimball--

I can just ignore you, because nothing anyone says to you means anything.

LDSDPer said...

@Isaac,

Your blog was VERY good; thank you for linking it from here.

:)

I can't respond to you on there, so I am responding on here.

Anonymous said...

LDSDPer said that Friar Tuck was a white supremacist. She then said, that I never told her I was black. She keeps making all kinds of assumptions about my race, but has never apologized for calling me a white supremacist. I FORGIVE YOU AGAIN.

I'm sorry LDSDPer but if you would have read some of the things I have written you would see that I think differing opinions are OK as long as they are handled in the manner the Lord has prescribed. You say you have tried D+C 107 and it didn't work for you, well, take it up with the Lord who is the author of the law.

Spencer W Kimaball invented his revelation about blacks getting the priesthood. Rock agrees with me on this one. So what is your point? I have answered your question. I do not believe everything the GAs say, I have never stated that. What I have stated is that the Lords house is a house of order. The majority does not rule. It is not a democracy. You are asked to sustain or vote against. You do not get to pick the candidates or the issues. I have learned to live with this. If you can't live with it you don't belong in the church, you belong with apostates that complain about everything all the time.

Friar Tuck

Irven said...

@ Friar Tuck

Why can't people in the church complain about wrongs they see? Why do they belong with apostates?

That's how king Noah probably felt about Abinadi. He was just some apostate complaining about "the Lords anointed", the anointed being him and his priests of course.

Nobody here is saying we shouldn't be baptized. They aren't complaining about the gospel. They are complaining about billion dollar malls, less than 1% of tithing helping the poor, and a culture which promotes turning a blind eye to wrong teachings or actions from someone with a "high calling".

It's one thing to be fighting against the gospel but another to disagree with actions contrary to the gospel that are funded and protected by contributions of supposed "members". There is nothing improper or apostate about dissent, unless you are a government tyrant or ChurchTM tyrant......then I'm sure there's plenty wrong with it.

BK said...

Friar Tuck,

I am glad to hear we agree on more then I thought we did.

But do you think anyone who leaves or doesn't believe in the Church is apostate?

And apostate from what, the leaders and their opinions, scriptures & religion? Or Christ? There is a big difference.

I am not apostate from Christ's teachings or his 'Church' (which is not the LDS Church, Christ's church is the spiritual church Rock refers to, that people of any church, or no church at all, can be a part of.)

I believe that most of the members of the LDS Church are apostates according to Christ's teachings, for they support and believe in doctrines and practices that are contrary to Christ.

And one can be 'apostate' from the Church and it's leaders while still being righteous and not apostate from Christ. It is often even a compliment to be called an 'apostate' from the Church.

Christ and his prophets were all complainers about everything wrong in the people and churches of their day. Thus his disciples would also be complainers, and try to raise a warning voice about the awfulness of their situation.

Silence, in the face of evil, is evil, even a sin.

James Brian Marshall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James Brian Marshall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James Brian Marshall said...

Hey folks I'm RLDS and just wanted to add my 10 cents.

Rock, please forgive the difficulties posting under my correct I.D. I have two accounts, for some reason I cannot get the right one to post.

Now my 10 cents!

I tend to agree if people see a need that need's filled, don't complain to the church. Fill that need.


But we also are supposed to be filling that need in wisdom. Only God can determine what is a "good cause". We are supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit in "all things".

Only God know's what is good, because only God knows if our actions enable a person to continue in sin. Only God knows if our assistance will help and affirm life eternal, or do more harm than good.

To be anxiously engaged in a good cause is great! To engage in what we view as a good cause, without God's OK is foolishness.

That said, it would be be better to be wrong, trying to do something right, than to be right about the need which need's to be filled and do nothing.

Procrastinating the day or our repentance is foolish.

To have a form of Godliness in our worship, but deny the Holy Ghost power to direct us in "all things" is heresy.


God Bless

Ferro Rocher said...

I'm just wondering, if anyone else outside of engaged, ldsdper and rock read my comments in regards tothe true historical and scriptural reason why we are all having this contentious discussion at this ooit in our era instead of getting to be one in mind and spirit as the Lord asked us. I don't want to be redundant or presumptuous so I won't repost. But I'd love to hear from this friartuck what response he has to my claims. If rock doesn't mind maybe I'll copy and repost here. I really think we're all bickering about something that is as clear as day if one just gives what I have written a chance. ..and iinvestigate my claim.

I will repost now and hope I don't come off as presumptuous but if I do...I do.

Ferro Rocher said...

Anonymous @ 11:55pm, and others that are confused at the modern church:Sorry but the LDS Church IS the corporate church and NOT the kingdom of God on earth, though you nmay have learned that through your correlated history, which history as always was written by the victors.So when did the church stop being inspired of Him, you ask? Not last year, or 1993 when the internet appeared to open the dusty truth or 1984 when Ronald Poelman's brilliant talk was sneakily altered by the 'brethren' or 1921 when the magnificent 'Lectures on Faith' were unscrupulously taken out of our D&C by Pres. Grant or 1877 when the fake D&C 132 was inserted and the ORIGINAL section 101 on monogamous marriage was taken out or even at Joseph's death in 1844 when Hyrum was officially the church Prophet. The answer why we have been battered the way we have is simple-When we thought way too much of ourselves and WITHOUT revelation, took the name of Jesus Christ out of the church's name in 1834...yes, all the way back in 1834! Don't believe me? Google the 1835 D&C front cover as well as the official name on the Kirtland Temple- on both it states the name of the church as 'The church of Latter Day Saints' without Jesus' name to be seen anywhere, after the members rejected our Lord's words in 3 Nephiand called a special conference where they voted Jesus' beloved name out of the church name! This coincided exactly with the period we became arrogant enough to say 'the hell with consecration' and refused to share all things in common, and Zion fell by the wayside.THAT way the beginning of the troubles and the beginning of the end of the church, not now! Upon Joseph and Oliver's pleading, the Lord 4 years later by REVELATION gave the church one more chance and gave the church, which was now composed of saints which had immigrated from UK and Europe to build Zion again, and thus Nauvoo and Far West were introduced, and ultimately they failed again- this time because of the refusal to finish building the Temple, and for embracing Masonry- how Nauvoo, a city supposedly built on the Book of Mormon, which was know as the 'Anti-Masonic Bible'- became the hotbed for that very secret society thing where they all build each other up like the Gadiantons, never ceases to amaze me. No wonder Nauvoo got destroyed. No wonder the saints suffered in their trek and received cursings instead of blessings as the Lord solemnly stated they would in D&C 124- read it, it is all there.Does anybody REALLY think that after the church REJECTED the simple Gospel of Jesus as outlined in the Book of mormon, and that Joseph (according to the 'victor' Brigham- perhaps the most ridiculously anti-Christ mormon right before our noses) would now get 'higher' teachings as represented in those fake endowments in the Temple?? When the church lived the Gospel and consecration from about 1830-34, there were angelic manifestations, healings, tongues, caring for the poor, CONSECRATION, and no ridiculous Temple endowments ceremony as was later taught in the Nauvoo years. From what I see, according to Ezekiel 14, the Lord used Joseph before his death to give the abominable Masonic-embracing 'saints' exactly what they wanted 'a FALSEHOOD' that lead them to the hell they and we have and are experiencing.That is the plain truth as to why we have NOT received any revelations since Joseph was taken. The modern so-called apostles have fooled all of us, and are at the point of the story where the Emperor parades his new clothes.Wake up people. It is as plain as day, and getting brighter.F Rocher

Ferro Rocher said...

So WHO came up with those ridonkulous temple rituals??June 13, 2014 at 6:38 AM Ferro Rocher said...engaged,i have been researching the topic for years: i have yet to see ANY contemporary documentation on the endowment from Joseph's personal writing or anyone from that contemporary era. It is a very shady and disgusting Masonic thing. The earliest one I have seen is of a woman who wrote it in 1846, 2 years after Joseph died, and she said it made her sick to see what Brigham had done.I will ask you, have you EVER seen anything about the endowment, documentation or even in the Book of Mormon? If you have, my friend, send me a link!!However, the usual drowning is more like this:1. One receives the Book of Mormon2. Upon reading and praying the truth of it is manifested3. with joy we accept it as the Word of the Lord4. Missionaries invite you to be baptized5. Suddenly with acceptance of the text, the very text that you know now to be of the Lord, you get baptised and lo and behold, you now are told you have to also accept other non-book-of-Mormon things6. confused, you are brainwashed by those 'in the know' that 'if the Book of Mormon is true then the Temples, endowments, garments must be true...and oh, the 15 Brethren in SLC are thus also living prophets!7. the confusion is so rotten that you accept8. Upon enetering the Temple a year later, you are shocked that the whole thing is completely against the Book of Mormon text9. once again, those in the know seduce you with 'if A is true, then surely B is true! Welcome to our club! Now, don't tell anyone, whatever you do...'My goodness, Mormoni said the fulness of the Gospel was contained in the Book of Mormon. The Temple in Kirtland was VERY different than the ones from Nauvoo onwards. Question this! No documentation, no revelation on endowments exist. And yet, like sheep, we believe the fake Emperors...It is strange to me that two Masons, Brigham was one in 1827 (and incidentally NEVER got ordained as a high priest and testified he never saw the Lord, now an angel), and Heber C Kimball, a Mason since 1827, would join the 'Anti-Masonic Church. Stranger yet is that these two who had meetings with the Jesuit soldier Joh Pierre de Smet (a whole 'nother story), would go on become the leaders of the 'Anti-Masonic' church. Draw your conclusions. I know I have. D&C 124 gives me plenty to go by. The temples were the issue, the fake endowments were not, and have never been necessary, and thus now revelation nor historical documentation exists.F Rocher

Ferro Rocher said...

about the Spirit testifying to the heart of truth...of the Book of Mormon. Just because the book of Mormon is true and you get the answer that it is, does NOT automatically mean that everything else that surrounds it is true. Moroni asked us (actually, specifically the Lamanites) to pray about the Book of Mormon, only...did he also include the other false non-Book of Mormon teachings?? No.I agree about the 'voice of my servants' being the voice of Jesus. What I am saying is that from 1834 on, the saints did NOT listen to the voice of the Servant Joseph- read my comment above. Likewise, just because Joseph was Jesus' Servant, like Isaiah, Enoch etc, does NOT automatically mean Brigham or Heber J Grant of Hinckley or Monson are His servants too.That logic is so idolatrous.For one, Joseph brought forth pure, undefiled book of scripture in the Book of Mormon and real written down revelations which are canonised in the D&C (and Book of Commandments), like Isaiah and other genuine prophets did in the Bible- where is Brigham's scripture? Or Hinckley or Monson?Problem with the Mormons is how blind we stubbornly are. And all because we cannot let the simple concept go- if the Book of Mormon is true, it does NOT mean everything else that attaches along with it over the years a.k.a 'the traditions of men/our fathers', is automatically genuine and true too.We automatically assume Monson sees Jesus, which is strange as he has NEVER said it. No one has said it since Joseph...yet, we blindly want to believe it so bad.Get back to the book of Mormon and the genuine parts of the D&C...that's what we need to do. The corporate church is pulling the Gadianton wool over our eyes. Read Helaman 6 and 3 Nephi 6 and 7, and like Nephi said, like the scriptures to us. We are the blind Nephites who the Gadiantons seduced to support themselves getting rich and taking over church and government.

Ferro Rocher said...

Moroni apparently said it here:He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants” (JSH 1:34).And according to the Lord in D&C:“…And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon; Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;” (D&C 20:8-9)In addition, one cannot reject the fulness if one never has it right? let's see what it says in the BoM of the Gentiles:“And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.” – 3 Nephi 16:10 (emphasis added.)I say the above prophecy about the Gentiles rejecting the fulness of the Gospel in the Book of Mormon, was fulfilled in the mid-1830's. In addition to other things I related above, have you read the record of the day the Kirtland Temple got defiled when the saints started a massive fight in that holy place, with guns and bowie knives, women and children jumping out of the upper floors? I agree, that perhaps not everything to do with the word 'fulness' is in the book of Mormon as suggested here, but perhaps all we need, as in the word 'much':12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.In saying that, we cannot just fill in blanks by ourselves by assuming we know what the missing things are, which are not mentioned in the scriptures, for example masonic endowment ceremonies etc.Of course, the 1830 Book of Mormon is the obvious, according to the D&C (which was given after the BoM was published with the missing 116 pages) answer to your q above. Now, brother, are you telling me that you have personally received of the fulness from Jesus Himself? Of course, you can only testify for yourself, like Denver does. If you haven't, and I certainly haven't had any of that visitation from Jesus or an angel whatsoever, then I'd say the Book of Mormon is the closest you and I have come, until the Lord decides otherwise, for us personally. No matter if Denver and others testifies, it also means nothing, as we, unlike Sidney Rigdon sitting next to Joseph in D&C 76, cannot be witnesses to anyone else's claims.For all the talk of establishing Zion, the Lord said in section 105:13 Therefore it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season, for the redemption of Zion.We cannot just go ahead and establish Zion without an actual revelation and with that 'Servant/Servants' of the Vineyard coming in person to do so.let's pray that it will happen soon. I'm getting very tired.

Ferro Rocher said...

one more thing, Brigham with all his 'king' BS obviously couldn't stand the fact that the Lord warns us in the Book of Mormon to not have any kings!of course, according to early journals, most saints didn;t even own a copy of the Book of Mormon (and the 1833 Book of Commandments, and 1835 D&C) to begin with, so they couldnt read much. All they could do was listen to Brigham and his buddies preach false truths that the poor, uneducated saints trusted was the word of God.In our day, with the access to internet and books, we don't have that excuse. Yet, the Gadiantons have seduced us...and we keep supporting them.Everyone should take their almost 20% (didn't the BoM say that 1/5th or 20% to pay church and state taxes is a burden too grievous to bear? Yet, we give to church and government to the tune of around 50% or more. Weird, when you find out that church and government are part of one complicated package in the world of finance and investment folios) that we pay, and give it to the Lord directly by giving to 'the least of our brethren' all around us.Let the tithing to the corporation stop! Let's see what the authority they keep boasting about is going to do in the obvious absence of actual priesthood power as described in JST Genesis 14-25-40. Priesthood is a power, not a vain authority.No healings? No revelation? No new scripture? Well, sorry- then the leaders don;t have the Priesthood. Period. 

Ferro Rocher said...

Bob Marley once wrote a line in a song of his:'Don't let them fool ya,Or even try to school ya! Oh, no!We've got a mind of our own,So go to hell if what you're thinking is not right!Love would never leave us alone,In the darkness there must come out the light.'Don't let the leaders and Romney fool ya- these guys have ALL been shrewd bankers and business and have survived that world with flying colours because they know exactly what they are doing. They are not naive. The Gadiantons looked like the Nephites, smelt the Nephites, prayed like them...and fooled 'em and schooled 'em. And the modern-day Gadiantons in SLC are foolin' and schoolin', and robbing the blind silly.There is an obvious reason why EVERY single General Authority is a rich man, and many of them Masons in this day. Someone wake me up when when a poor, humble carpenter gets to be President of the church...and the Twelve are fisherman who can barely feed their families...

Ferro Rocher said...

Forgive the typos please. ..I am writing all this from my tiny cell phone in the middle of a forest.

BK said...

Ferro Rocher,

Great comments! I have really enjoyed your posts and agree with most of what you say. Please keep posting, you share many great and vital insights we all need to realize.

I agree that things are as 'clear as day' when you look into the Church's history, leaders, and past & present doctrines and practices, especially in light of Christ's teachings.

Though I am starting to realize that the BoM is not true scripture nor written by true prophets, nor inspired by God or really from Gold Plates, etc.

Just take Nephi for example, I don't believe a true prophet or righteous man would have slayed Laban for the plates. (They didn't really need the plates that bad) Nor do I believe God would have told him to.

Nor do I believe a true prophet would have added that story into a book of scripture, for he wouldn't have fallen for it and wouldn't have wanted to lead people astray by it. Nor do I believe Joseph would have published such a false story, if he had been a true prophet.

And there are many other things in the BoM that true prophets also would not have done, written, included or published. And many things left unsaid that true prophets would have done and taught.

I am starting to see that Joseph probably wrote it with or without help and that he wasn't really a true prophet, which would also explain many other wrong things he did and why he didn't follow Christ in everything he did either.

And why he was continually deceived by the worst of men, even to fill many of the highest positions in the church with unrighteous men. I don't believe a true prophet would have been so easily deceived.

And God would not expect anyone to believe in or follow such a fallible person.

But Joseph did teach and do many good things, and at least he was against polygamy, though slow to do much about it or the members/leaders living it.

BabySister said...

Wow, lots of discussion. Thought provoking. My first time visiting this site.

Anonymous said...

@SmithFamily:
So sorry for what you had to go through with your situation and what your Bishop did to you.
It is unfortunate that in the LDS church there is no consistency in anything except correlated meetings.

A Bishop of one ward can be generous, and then a Bishop of another ward is a hard nosed self righteous jerk.
And members have no other recourse. Stake Presidents are hit and miss too.

The majority of LDS members do not live the Gospel of Christ(even though they think they are) and so wards have problems. And SLC leaders wonder why people leave the church.

EG

Becca said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Becca said...

I just started reading your blog and I find it VERY thought provoking. What actually brought me to your blog was the rumor that you have received a letter for a disciplinary council like John and Kate. Is this true? I'm so depressed about all of this.

Robin Hood said...

@Irven Hill.
Thanks for the invitation to comment, but I don't know enough about it to make any meaningfull contribution.

engaged19times said...

Ferrero, Im just curious what GAs are masons in this day and age? Im guessing BKP probably is. Know of any others?

BK, About the plates, someone on reddit was saying if joseph used the seer stone to translate them, then that means the plates werent necessary. If the plates werent necessary, then nephi didnt need to kill laban to acquire them. But werent the plates nephi killed for the brass plates, which we dont know where those currently are??

Another good saying from the reddit exmo crowd: Whats good about the church isnt unique and whats unique about the churh isnt good

Ferro Rocher said...

BK, my friend,

Hold your thoughts with this feeling that the Book of Mormon isn't true, and that Joseph as a true prophetwould not have included that account of Nephi and Laban. In fact, I think on the contrary, if the Book was fake and yet it required a genius to write something so unique, I don;t think the same scheming author could be so dumb to write something that would obviously, at first glance, being such a turn off. Why make it difficult, when he could have left it out and made it easier?

Rather, a couple of things come to mind. Firstly, Nephi was under the Law of Moses, which law justified, or perhaps demanded, that he do what he did. I am on my cell phone so can't write much about it at this point, but will do a bit later.

Secondly, read Emma's final testimony to her sons in regards to the possibility that Joseph wrote the book of Mormon. She stated a few facts about the translation, and then in her final statement said something to the effect of 'Your father couldn't even dictate a letter, much less write one with his own hand, let alone write something like the Book of Mormon'. Having read some of his letters, oh man, I must agree- they seem to have all the sophistication of a grade 3 student. She also stated that at no point could there ever have been anything that he could have prepared prior to reading the translation.

Further, the text itself is so deep that I think, like an onion, we have only been looking at the outside layer. Folks like:
-Daymon Smith
-OWIW at the incredible www.onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com
-the Anarchist at www.ldsanarchy.wordpress.com , -Hugh Nibley (forget about the current official church apologists- they are enough to make one lose interest in the Gospel in a hurry),

...have uncovered some mindblowing things in the text itself. I'll leave you with two more must-reads and a video, and then I ENCOURAGE everyone to research and reconsider your faith in, and your testimony of, the Book of Mormon, and its rightful place as a gift from God the father, and His son Jesus, to bring us closer to them.

Two more blogs not spoken much by LDS:

-http://www.latterdayisrael.com/ which is on the Book of Mormon from a Native American point of view, so to speak...an awesome spirit.

and a Baptist minister's testimony of his favourite scripture book, yes, the Book of Mormon:

http://www.centerplace.org/library/bofm/baptistversionofbofm.htm

(to be continued)

Ferro Rocher said...

(continued)

Folks, you are here for a reason. Go with your instinct. I am a convert to the book of Mormon. Joined the church, served a mission and EQ president and all that BS, but could never get converted to the corporate church. With all my heart, i am have always been convinced that the LDS Corporate church is to the Book of Mormon what the Bible has been to the Catholic church.

Both institutions are just a later grasp of power once the fulness of the Gospel left the earth. For the Catholic'Bible it was with the rejection of consecration and the death of the apostles,and the Romans/Jesuit imposters taking over. For the LDS/Book of mormon, it was with the rejection of consecration and later, all hope was lost with the death of Joseph, and Brigham and Masonic/Jesuit influences taking over. Ironically, both represent the two richest churches on earth, and, both live the doctrines of men rather than the book of scripture they pretend to honour.

Folks, the Book of Mormon is real. Joseph's calling was real. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The modern church and its apostles and programs and callings and other garbage is all a substitute for the real things. Don't let these men have authority over you- they have none. Whatever Priesthood they have, Aaronic or Patriarchal (which Joseph said was the greatest priesthood the LDS church ever had) you have too. As for the melchezidek priesthood, read JST Genesis 14:25-40 along with 4th nephi and Enoch's account, and tell me who on earth has this THIRD and HIGHEST priesthood amongst us today? No one. The Servants of the Vineyard need to return for that to happen...

Ferro Rocher said...

...and finally for that video:

It is about an hour, but an absolute joy to watch. I love Wayne's sincerity. He truly believes what he says, and the stuff he pulls out is without doubt, some of the best evidence for the book of Mormon. This is just one of his videos. Watch closely, you may have to watch it a couple of times, but I guarantee it is worth every second, especially as he gets deeper into it on the Jaredites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJOY4OtCj7Y

In Christ
Ferro

James Brian Marshall said...

Responding to BK.


So when God told the Israelites to invade the land of Canaan,(soon to be Israel) the orders were handed down from God through Moses to Joshua via written records... If you read carefully, the Biblical scripture says that Joshua was careful "to do all that was written"...

When God told the Israelites to kill every man,woman and child Canaanite who came out to war against them, this must means Moses also was a false prophet?

Or when Prophet Samuel ordered King Saul kill every man, woman, child, sheep, Ox and beast, here, let me quote the scripture, 1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Or King David, who killed Goliath? Or the Ark of the Covenant killing the wayward priest who dared to reach out and touch it, to steady it, he having little faith the Lord God could keep, could strengthen his brother priests, keeping them on their feet...

Or the Prophet Samuel who took up a sword and killed a king?

32Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past. 33And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

You are right in saying killing is wrong. But God can kill anybody He wants, anyway he wants.

You have omitted the fact a covenant people are bound by their covenant to their God. If they are God's people, they are His instruments, even as those Israelites of old. They must do His will.

A Prophet, Elder, Priest, or Deacon, or simple plain member of Jesus Church are all the same. They must do the will of the Lord.

To seal on earth and in Heaven all that is written.


That said BK, the minds and hearts of men have become greatly corrupted, teaching today a form of godliness, but we deny having a relationship with the Lord God. They teach after a manner comfortable to their own precepts of finite wisdom, they do not study all that God has done with men.

The Canaanites were a covenant people descendant of Noah. Noah was a prophet who did the Lords will, and all the earth’s population died because of it.

God is tough on people. He is unrelenting, He cannot accept sin in the least degree.

He raises up servants upon all the earth over to do His will, that evil everywhere may be defeated.

Obviously I with little work have shown prophets do kill, and Joseph Smith was correct in recording the type and shadow as translated from the Book of Mormon.

Where our understanding diverges in on the the principle of Covenant. The Book of Mormon has tried to warn the Restoration in no nonsense terms that they also would be destroyed, even swept off this land of America, if they should run before the Lord as they have.

And if they do not speedily repent, they will be wiped from the face of this earth, and the Native Americans, the Lamanites will take it back.

God Bless

James Brian Marshall said...

@ BK


When a people become so dangerous as the people of Canaan, openly performing child sacrifice in burning furnaces to the god Molock, becoming so wicked in all form of disobedience and idol worship as they did...

They become more a liability to God and God's creation. They destroy everyone and everything about them.

When they come into this fullness of iniquity, where the inhabitants of the earth are more safe with Canaanite's dead than alive, then God wiped them out. Sparing only those who the Bible records as "standing still in their strength". Only those Cannanites who stood still, submitting to God's judgements of destruction for their people, themselves escaped with their lives.

God raise up a covenant people, to destroy other people who used to be His covenant people.

This is the message of the Book of Mormon. And the Doctrine and Covenants warns all saint's it will happen to them if they follow in the steps of the Canaanites.

Ferro Rocher said...

Awesome, James, awesome.

BK said...

Ferro Rocher,

I really appreciate your reply to my comments.

But I believe that Joseph would have believed that God could or would have told Nephi to do such a thing and that Nephi would have done it. I realize he probably would have been justified under the law of the time, but I just don't believe a righteous man, especially not a prophet (who would have had charity) would have done such a thing. And I don't believe God would have commanded it, for it didn't have to be done, Nephi was not bound to follow the law and God's justification is even false that Nephi needed the plates so his future nation wouldn't dwindle in unbelief, for Nephi could have easily received all the commandments and laws written on those plates, by his own personal revelation as a prophet.

Prophet must have charity to be true prophets and someone with charity (which is very rare) would not do such a thing, unless in self defense, which wasn't the case.

So I believe Joseph didn't realize how false the story of Nephi was and thus put it in there thinking everyone would believe it as true, for it does sound ok, unless you consider what it means to have charity.

And yes, maybe Joseph didn't have the skills to actually write it, but it seems he did have a gift for story telling and could have dictated his story to a more educated person. And there as other books of the time that were very similar that Joseph, etc, could have got ideas and story plots from.

And what about the 'Tree of Life' dream? I highly doubt Joseph's father just happened to have the same dream as some ancient prophet.

And what is the chances a family or person who was into treasure hunting and gold digging, magic etc. would have been the one's chosen to bring forth such a record on gold plates?

And I also take pause with all the vital truths missing from the BoM that would be there if those prophets had been real and true. Where are all the prophetesses and female leaders and teachings of women's respect and equality, etc. It appears written by men who didn't understand those things. For where there are prophets there are just as many or more prophetesses leading the people too. And all true prophets would acknowledge and honor them.

BK said...

Ferro Rocher, Continued -

Also, though I believe Emma was probably telling the truth when she said Joseph didn't live polygamy, we know for sure that Emma wasn't exactly truthful or honest and open in everything, especially with herself, for we do know Emma lived polygamy, being the 2nd wife of a man already married (though divorced but still married in God's eyes). So Emma knew it was wrong to be married to her 2nd husband and thus she married him & stayed with him (even though he was abusive and unfaithful to her) and that shows she was not honest with herself so there is reason to wonder about what she says.

And I don't understand what you mean by 'fullness of the Gospel', for I don't think Christ's Gospel was ever lost, though corrupted by churches yes, but his Gospel was still there in the Bible in all it's purity, for people to study and live if they wanted to. I don't see the need for Joseph to restore anything.

I believe the Gospel is very simple, though almost impossible to live, but it just consists of having charity, helping the poor, keeping marriage covenants no matter what and living the Golden Rule, etc. I believe the LDS church, even from Joseph's day has read a lot more into the Gospel then there really is, like temple stuff, 2nd comforter stuff, Priesthood stuff, etc. Anyone can receive the Priesthood from God if they are righteous, both men and women, it's a natural outcome from having charity and probably one and the same, for charity/love is God's power, the greatest power there is, so love & Priesthood power are the same thing. You can't have one without the other. Which means the LDS Church leaders could not have an ounce of it, for they have never followed Christ, especially not since BY.

But I am open to and interested in your thoughts on theses things. Thank you.

BK said...

James,

Thank you also for responding to my comments.

I believe though, that the Bible is filled with falsehoods and errors and that many or most of the stories in it are either untrue or corrupted and distorted. Having been written or translated by probably unrighteous men.

We must understand a basic premise, that God does not and cannot contradict himself, or all is chaos and no one would ever know right from wrong if God could change or command different things at different times.

So I don't believe God really commanded Moses or the Israelites to destroy all those people (though those people probably believed he did, just as most unrighteous people believe they are following God's commands or inspiration)

Maybe God would have commanded the destroying of the wicked in the area, to protect women and children, but not everyone, that goes totally against Christ's teachings and charity and God could never command it and remain God.

Also, it doesn't sound like Moses had charity (which is a requirement for true followers/prophets of Christ), and thus I don't believe everything he did was right either. Many 'so called prophets' before and after him fell for all kinds of evils too, that was nothing new.

So most of those stories you mention I don't believe are accurate or what God really commanded.

And when you talk of a covenant people, all that means is people covenant to follow Christ, which is a covenant to love. And although love means protecting the innocent, it does not ever include destroying the innocent. So God would and could never command people to go against Christ's laws and destroy innocent men, women and children or even animals.

It is not a surprise that all those people were deceived to do such things, for they were a very wicked people who refused to follow Christ.

Look at how people just accept that Abraham was told by God to sacrifice Issac or even to live polygamy, both of which God would never do, for they were both completely contrary to Christ's teachings. But it's very likely Abraham really thought God told him to, for he had lost the Spirit from living polygamy and would have easily fallen for false revelation.

Everyone is deceived at times to believe things or revelations or scriptures or prophets are from God that really aren't. It takes many years to come to understand and live Christ's laws and precepts, something that is and always has been very rare for anyone to do, so if anything it was probably very rare in Moses day or throughout the Bible, to find anyone who was righteous and really followed Christ and had charity.

James Brian Marshall said...

BK,


I see you.


As funny as that comment may seem to you
, I'm a country boy and woodsman. I've become good as spotting stuff.

God Bless

LDSDPer said...

@Ferro,

I read it the first time and much of it again--

:)

Your words ring true.


@BK, I am surprised that you prefer the New Testament over the Book of Mormon, since Brigham young also preferred all the bible (O.T. and N.T.) over the Book of Mormon and saw little need for the Book of Mormon.


James, it's good to see an RLDS here. I haven't associated with RLDS since 1967 when I got into an argument (not about religion) with the RLDS minister's son in a high school class. LOL!


and Ferro, I agree that the story of Laban and Nephi makes the entire thing much more believable--


As to Emma, I don't think she cared much for the man. He wasn't faithful. I am quite certain there was no connubial relations, and it was of little concern to him, because he had had a very long-term mistress with whom he had children.

But Emma had every reason to be VERY concerned about the safety of her sons.

And the man she married was, in spite of his moral lassitude, an honorable military man who had defended the Mormons consistently.

With her husband and two of his brothers being killed (murdered) within two months and another effectively eliminated through excommunication--

who was to protect her boys? From Joseph's old 'companions'?

I believe she was thinking of her boys when she married that man, Colonel Crum, was it?

and not of herself--

She had already been through too much.

James, I won't argue with you. :)

The Book of Mormon is the real deal. And I don't just say that because my graduate work was in literature.

*wink*

It's astounding what an amazing job satan and his willing cohorts have done of sealing it, plastering over it, nailing things on to it--

everything but destroy every copy--

amazing--

and chilling.

Gary Hunt said...

Everyone,

News flash!

The LDS Church is suing an online dating service because they are using the word "Mormon". Here's the link.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Mormons-opposed-to-Spring-dating-site-5399678.php#photo-6123389

I wonder what Mormon thinks about that.

BK said...

James,

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by your last post.

James Brian Marshall said...

Hey there BK,

Meaning I'm not seeing much charity coming off of you right now.


When we put people down, we lack charity.

So far that's all I'm seeing you do right now is put down a bunch of people you never knew or met.

I can say this because at one time, I lacked charity in how I handled my own expert critical eye.

I'm an offender just as you are. Worse than you actually.

So please lighten up and come up with some good things to say.

After all, it's like Thumper said in the Movie Bambi. "If you ain't got noting nice to say, it's best to say nothing at all."

We all need hard truth. But along with that we need good things also. Otherwise I'm going issue a "killjoy warning".


God Bless

BK said...

James,

I understand why you might feel that way.

But it is not uncharitable to disagree with people's actions based on Christ's teachings, or to believe them unrighteous.

In fact Christ commanded us to do just such things.

It would be uncharitable to accept or say anyone was righteous, especially so called prophets, if their actions are contrary to the teachings of Christ.

Even Christ and true prophets constantly called the kettle black, which most people didn't like either. So I realize it's not fun to hear, but it's not uncharitable.

It's actually very charitable to speak up about falsehoods and evil and help people not be deceived by false teachings, false scriptures or false or fallen prophets.

And while I love Disney, I don't believe Christ or true prophets followed Thumper's motto.

Hard truths are good things to those who want to know them.

engaged19times said...

Can anyone respond to this for me? I never thought of it this way before: Someone on reddit was saying if joseph used the seer stone to translate them, then that means the plates werent necessary. If the plates werent necessary, then nephi didnt need to kill laban to acquire them. But werent the plates nephi killed for the brass plates, which we dont know where those currently are?? Am i missing something? Were the plates nephi killed for the same golden plates joseph dug up?

Friar Tuck said...

@Ferro Rocher:

You have invited me to comment, and I welcome the opportunity, but you have presented a mountain of material. One thing that immediately strikes me is the temple endowment. I have always found it counter-intuitive that the Lord would need handshakes and words from us in order to get into his kingdom...as if he does not know all to begin with, and who belongs in his kingdom and who does not.

Theses ceremonial emblems might have impressed the less sophisticated people of the 19th century, but not the people today. Whats more, you can find everything on the internet, so it sort of makes it all moot, doesn't it?

When we are resurrected, we are resurrected with a Celestial body, or a Terrestial body, or a Telestial body. Anyone that possesses less than a Celestial body cannot physically enter the Celestial Kingdom...it is an impossibility. The power that resides there would consume anything not Celestial.

Anyway, this is my understanding of things. It is entirely possible that I am in error, but I don't have a huge problem with these things because I am confident that the Lord will make all right in his due time.

BK said...

engaged,

Yes, if Joseph used a seer stone and didn't translate from the plates he wouldn't have needed Gold Plates. Another red flag in my book.

But the 'gold plates' Joseph supposedly had were not the plates Nephi got from Laban, they were different plates Moroni had made and buried, that he supposedly showed Joseph were to find them.

But Moroni would have had the 'plates of Laban' in his possession, along with many other records, when he wrote the Gold Plates, which he said were only a small part of the many records which he had to glean from.

Friar Tuck said...

@BK:

No, I don't think that everyone that leaves the church is an apostate. I don't think that anyone that does not believe everything hook, line, and sinker is an apostate either.

I believe that an apostate is someone that having gone through the proper channels to handle serious differences continues to fight against the church after exhausting all appeals. Or someone that never even uses the proper channels but continues to fight against the church. The only honorable thing for these sorts of people to do is to leave the church and go their own way.

It is as nobody ever said... has stated:"We are all at different places on our journey through life, trying to force someone out of a paradigm that gives them peace and security can cause great fear and discomfort. If their current state suits them, it suits me."

I believe that the church has a mission to baptize and convert people to the gospel. When we fight against the church structure, we are harming the scaffolding that the Lord has put in place to accomplish his purposes. Take Kate Kelly... she professes to love the church and to only want answers and ,presumably, the priesthood. Yet her militant actions are only going to get her thrown out of the church and undermine her stated goals while causing doubts and misgivings against the church by onlookers.

This is, in essence, my belief. Others disagree with me. I reiterate that I believe the church has an overriding and important mission to accomplish. This is the mission that people do not understand, not even the leaders. The leaders do not even realize that in spite of their personal corruption the Lord will still use them to accomplish a greater mission, even while they suppose themselves to be holy.

Must we fight against an institution we suppose to be corrupt? The short answer is no. We must allow the gospel seed to be planted in every available soul before we bombard them with all the unseemly dirty laundry. We must then encourage them to continue to study and grow from a sapling to a might oak someday.

engaged19 times said...

BK, So basically the brass plates thing is a red herring about whether or not the BoM is of God? I need to reflect on this a few days.

Friar sometimes u say stuff that is very self aware about mormonism's many, many flaws (i.e., God doesnt need secret handshakes). But then to say, we must plant the seed, blah blah...well, thats what is frustrating. Have u ever wondered why the church cant retain converts and why they want ppl perpetuating the "gospel" thru large families? Its because MOST converts (unfortunately not my parents) but most of them realize what a crock mormonism is! U pretty much have to be born into this nonsense and brainwashed since birth to believe it! That is the most telling thing about mormonism ever. I could write much more but im on my phone.

Friar Tuck said...

@engaged19times:

Yes, Satan has done a good job of exploiting the frailties of mortal men...it only goes to show us that man is not really capable of governing himself in a righteous manner for any length of time.

The key is to understand what the Lord is trying to accomplish, and putting our trust in him. Why do people (who are all inherently fallible) think that THEY have the answers where others have failed?

It is for this very reason that I muddle along with what the Lord has given us to work with. I work in the vineyard, doing what the Lord has commanded. Of course the human in me finds all sorts of pitfalls with the system. The easiest thing to do would be to throw my hand up in the air and walk away, or cast accusations against those I suppose to be responsible for the demise of the church. This is what Satan wants.

To be valiant is to press on under great hardship, keeping our eye on the goal the Lord has given us and realizing that he, and he alone can keep things on the straight and narrow.

BK said...

Friar Tuck,

Thanks for the response.

I guess we just disagree then on whether the Church is truly Christ's church or just Brigham's apostate church. For the are completely opposite.

I only believe people are 'apostate' if they support or live teachings that are 'contrary' to Christ. Which means all the leaders in the Church are apostates.

Just because someone disagrees with church leaders who are apostate themselves, and warns others about them, doesn't mean the person is apostate at all, but probably being very righteous.

While God can and does use even corrupt churches (like the LDS Church) to further his mission of teaching his gospel, for they all teach at least some truth, I don't believe that the LDS Church has any special calling or mission then any other church in the world.

In fact it seems to lead people 'away' from the Gospel of Jesus Christ and destroy families far more then most Christian churches out there do.

Thus why it's important to speak up about it and warn others to not be deceived by it's false doctrines and false prophets who have no authority to judge or excommunicate anyone anyway.

The leaders are doing just as bad or worse things as the people they excommunicate, who often are not doing anything wrong at all, except standing up against falsehood in the leaders and church.

But corrupt leaders usually cast out the righteous, nothing new here.

As for Kate Kelly, I believe her desires are righteous (for true churches & prophets would honor women's equal priesthood power & position at all levels) and the Church is wrong for ignoring her petitions and rights.

But she is going to the wrong source for Priesthood. The Church has no priesthood or authority pr position to give, let alone deny, especially since they are neither righteous nor worthy of such Priesthood themselves, nor has the Church ever had it, for it's founder BY & Co. were even more unrighteous and thus lost any priesthood power or keys they may have held. For if you believe D&C 121, only righteous people can maintain Priesthood power and keys.

God already automatically gives all women the Priesthood if they are righteous, just like with men. Kate does not need to worry about the LDS Church denying her Priesthood.

Even if they caved and gave women the Priesthood women would still not have real priesthood, for the church doesn't have any to give, and you can't give Priesthood anyway, it's something that must be earned individually by righteousness and then bestowed directly by God.

And it is not wise to raise saplings in a corrupt church, for they will usually fall for & follow corrupt teachings & leaders and never learn the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and thus lose their salvation.

You must do as Alma did when he left the church of King Noah, and took those who were humble and teachable out to the wilderness to live Christ's teachings on their own, without any church to be a part of.

Better to raise a family in 'no church' and just study and live Christ's teachings on your own, then support or be influenced by or taken advantage of or led astray by a corrupt church filled with corrupt men.

At least these are the teachings of Christ and Joseph Smith and the scriptures you profess to believe in.

Minerals Liberia said...

Alan,

my take from your writings on your blog is that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is not the true, honest, and complete authorized Church of Christ.

When and if you find the "one" please inform the rest of us here so we aren't fooled anymore.

Friar Tuck said...

@BK:

I appreciate your thoughts, but have you not set yourself up as a judge? I realize my limitations. I realize that I am as corrupt as any other man. I realize that, even though I think I know what is true and right, that my thoughts and feelings are no more special than any other man that has led the Mormon church. Why should I believe I have a leg up on any of them?

Honestly, BK, every man thinks that he is right in his own mind. It is only when we surrender our will to the Lord, and place our burdens at his feet, that righteousness can truly occur. I would never presume to judge leaders for their frailties or to "warn others" about their behavior. If I have been critical here, it is because I only wish for people to stop judging church leaders, but in the process I am judging someone myself.

BK said...

Friar Tuck,

And I believe the contrary, that it's much harder to leave a corrupt church them stay in it, especially when you've been raised in it your whole life and most of your family and friends are members and you will be looked down on, shun you, and think you're an apostate.

It takes great courage to leave the only support or social system you've known and go it on your own and follow God and not men.

I believe Satan wants people to stay in the Church, for he is the one that helped start the church under Brigham. I believe it's Satan's church. And it works great to deceive people and keep them from really learning and living the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, for everyone usually easily falls for the false doctrine and false prophets who lead them carefully down to 'you know where'.

The last thing Satan wants is someone to wake up and see the errors and stand for right and leave the church and warn others of it's deceptions.

I agree there are many who leave the church who don't follow Christ either, but there are many valiant souls who do leave the church in order to follow Christ and thus are far better off & blessed for it.

Friar Tuck said...

@Minerals Liberia:

Rock does not believe that we need a "church", he believe that all we need is the Book of Mormon and a belief in Christ. He will quote you a scripture that says, in essence, that whoso ever repents and believes in Christ is his church.

one hand claping said...

"Folks, the Book of Mormon is real. Joseph's calling was real. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater."

I agree,We should keep the Baby, but it's time to step out of the "bath". it has lost all it's warmth. It is now just cold, dirty water. lol

Friar Tuck said...

@BK:

You can say this is Satan's church, and you may be correct to a degree.

I have met many missionaries in my life, and many have a powerful and wonderful spirit about them. I have been in many chapels alone, after hours, and have felt the spirit permeate the walls and my being. I have listened to some conference talks that the spirit testified to me the truthfulness thereof.

Good exists in the church. It is not the church we started with, it is the church we have been bequeathed. I will do the best I can to operate within the structure I have inherited. Well people do not need the healing power of Christ, sick people do. If you think it is better to abandon the church and cry uncle to Satan, then that is your choice. But as in Sodom and Gomorrah, it only takes a few righteous people to stave off destruction.

BK said...

Friar Tuck,

Yes, I do try to judge and discern, whether especially churches and church leaders and those who call themselves prophets are true and righteous or not.

For Christ commanded us to judge churches and church leaders and prophets and people, it's a vital necessity, but he told us to judge righteously, by using his teachings and standards as a guide, especially charity.

Also, Christ warned us to beware of false prophets, for if we fell for them we would lose our salvation.

So I don't understand why you aren't more concerned about who you follow.

You seem to blindly believe that by the LDS Church is God's Church and thus follow it's leaders, no matter how corrupt. You feel you are following God and you will somehow be blessed, no matter how deceived you may be.

But following God means to follow Christ and his teachings, not any man or even prophet, for even prophets are often wrong and can easily fall and can lead you to lose your salvation.

I do believe I surrender my will to the Lord and follow only him.

God gave us a brain and he expects us to use it and compare Christ's teachings with what churches and it's leaders are doing before supporting them.

Why would I ever follow men I think are unrighteous and evil, like LDS leaders? Why would I think they are better or know better then me? I can easily see they do not have charity, at least I am trying to.

I am trying to follow Christ, despite my weaknesses & shortcomings, God does not want me to follow any men, especially one's who are not following Christ. And it is not as hard to judge as you make it seem.

Judging and warning others of unrighteous leaders or churches is a righteous thing, something vital that we have to do if we are going to not be deceived and achieve Eternal Life.

Those who are not willing to judge or warn others, are thus deceived and easily led astray to support and do evil, though they rarely realize it.

We must constantly be looking for deception and false doctrine and false prophets and make sure we are only following Christ.

Most people don't believe in or want to have to judge churches and prophets and leaders because then they would have to be righteous themselves in order to do it righteously and it's very hard to be righteous, so most everyone just goes along blindly, believing that all will turn out, for its so much easier, but it's just what Satan wants.

Satan doesn't want you to judge church leaders or warn others about them, but God commands it.

James Brian Marshall said...

@ engaged19times

Nehemiah 7 spoke of a priesthood who because of missing records, were put from the priesthood because they could not prove their genealogy, nor eat of the most holy things (communion) until there stood a priest with Urim and Thummim.

Joseph Smith was that priest. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon records Lehi and his sons as having taken the missing record.

61 And these were they which went up also from Telmelah, Telharesha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, nor their seed, whether they were of Israel.

62 The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred forty and two.

63 And of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai, which took one of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite to wife, and was called after their name.

64 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

65 And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim.

BK said...

Friar Tuck,

Yes, I could say the same about feeling the spirit at times and hearing good things in church meetings too, but that doesn't mean the church is true or God's church.

Most churches, no matter how corrupt, teach a lot of good and truthful things and are filled with good kind people that have just been deceived, like the LDS people.

A person feels the Spirit because they are in tune at that moment, not because of the place they are in. You can feel the Spirit in any church on earth of any religion or in any quite place.

It doesn't mean a church is true just because you may feel the Spirit or hear some truth spoken by someone.

LDS leaders teach many true and good things along with false things. And the Spirit will confirm the truth when heard.

But any good person in the world of any religion can teach you some truth and the Spirit can confirm it. It doesn't mean the church they belong to is true.

Also, we must be careful about putting so much trust in feelings, for Satan can and does easily deceive us by our feelings. We can think it's the Holy Spirit confirming something to us when it is really our own mind or Satan. Satan give us lots of false revelation and confirmations that can feel so right and so true.

We can't trust our feelings, for we can't be sure they are from God. That's another red flag about the BoM, saying we test truth by feelings, when we must test truth by comparing it to Christ's words. For no one can be sure their good and warm fuzzies are really coming from the right Spirit.

We must prove all things and people and revelation and churches, according to the words of Christ, which are clear and easy to understand if we are honest and sincere.

Christ and even Joseph Smith warned us of how false prophets come in sheep's clothing, pretending to be wonderful righteous men and women, teaching mostly good and wonderful true things. But they add in just a few falsehoods, often without knowing it, that few ever realize, and thus they lead people down to destruction all the while the people think they are following God and are righteous.

Joseph warned us and the member of his day that most everyone falls for false prophets and false churches thinking they are true churches and true prophets, because they seem so good and do so much good and teach so many true things. But people still lose their salvation for letting themselves be deceived by them.

You are doing what most people in the world do. They assume that the church they have grown up in or have 'inherited', is God's church, if even corrupted, without proving it, according to Christ's teachings.

Do you think that everyone will be saved no matter what they believe or how they live or what religion they are in?

Do you believe that the RLDS or FLDS people should stay in their churches, for it was what was handed down to them? The RLDS Church has even more right to say it's the true continuation of Joseph's church then LDS do, for it's closer to what Joseph taught then the LDS Church is.

Would you stay in those churches if you were raised in them too? And think you're following God? Do you think God would be ok with you following Warren Jeffs if you had grown up in that church? I believe BY was even worse.

If you believe those churches are less true then the LDS Church then you don't know Church history, and if you say you would stay in them, then we are at an impasse and there is no need for further discussion, for you have your mind made up.

James Brian Marshall said...

Oooops!

Sorry I messed up in my answer. Little birds telling my communion answer is not the only answer....

I'm remembering there were ancient Temple ordinances carried out by the priests in the OT temple.

Shew bread being one of these. I guess I now have my next bible study to look forward to.

Friar Tuck said...

@BK:

I don't follow the leaders, I follow the church. The church happens to have leaders, whom I chose to leave alone. It's like being an American...the leaders of this country are all corrupt, and it simply does not matter who occupies the Presidential seat. Do you really think Americans are not aware of the corruption, but what can Americans do about it?

The country goes on, and we live our lives and the leaders have little effect on what I do. So it is with the church. I can draw attention to the misdeeds of the leaders, but what good will it do? It will turn people off about the church. If the leaders are replaced, the new ones will be no better.What are the options? Leave? Start a new church? Complain about the church endlessly without any real change taking place? These are the questions I have asked over and over and I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer from anyone.

Like I said, I am not selling out to corporate bigwigs. I understand what the Lord's purpose is, and I believe the church was established for a reason...to disseminate the gospel. I don't know how to make my position any clearer. As an individual out on my own what can I hope to accomplish? I might be personally truer to my relationship with the Lord, but what about building the kingdom. One person has no way to build the kingdom of god. To build the kingdom takes buildings and people and money and resources ans a coordinated effort. Striking out on one's own is a step backwards.

Many that have criticized the church have developed their own followings whether they wanted to or not and have become quasi prophets: John Dehlin, Rock Waterman, Kate Kelly, Denver Snuffer. Don't tell me that people do not hang on their every word, because that is just a lie. So now we have well-meaning people that have created numerous splinter groups. This is just chaos. These movements have not produced a unified faith, but have caused a propensity of special interest groups to arise. The church is fracturing and splintering into many schools of thought. Each group will die its own slow death as it loses momentum. This has all happened before, it was called the great apostasy. If you think a decent into chaos and anarchy is preferable to maintaining the church structure we have I think you are short sighted.

Kevin said...

With all the hue and cry online about apostates last week, I found a post by Jana Riess enlightening. Riess points out that what most of us are describing when we use the word, 'apostate' is actually 'heretic'.

"A heretic is someone who challenges cultural or religious assumptions and codes. The word comes from the Greek root for “choice,” and acknowledges that human beings make choices to better themselves and their world. Heretics care, often too much, about truth and justice and all that muckety muck.

An apostate, by contrast, is someone who is literally out of the fold (apo + stasis = “standing away from or outside of”). An apostate is someone who has renounced her religion and has no role in it anymore.

Being a heretic sounds exciting and quite cutting-edge, but the sad reality for us heretics is that we are rather dull creatures. We know the truth of what Helen Keller once said: “The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of the next.”

By that definition, truth seekers that are being labeled 'apostates' by our self-righteous friends are actually heretics and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. What many of us resonate to in your posts, Rock, is a sense that all is not well in Zion (the voice of a heretic). Cate the Heretic has a certain ring to it as well. We're all probably heretics to one degree or another. I just haven't met many apostates.

http://janariess.religionnews.com/2013/04/30/im-not-an-apostate-mormon-just-a-garden-variety-heretic/

James, good to have a Mormon cousin join in the conversation here. We can be a rowdy, opinionated bunch though, as you've probably discovered.

LDSDPer said...

@Minerals Liberia--

I am not speaking for Rock, but you say, "show us the true church if you find it"--

as I've read the scriptures more and more (and for years I dedicated myself to the D&C, before I quite reading anything but the Book of Mormon)


I have come to see:


D&C 84:54-58


that the entire church is under condemnation and has been since 1832. It was never lifted. This has concerned people for well over a century; it concerned Ezra Taft Benson, who, though he missed the 'race' issue thoroughly, really "got" the Book of Mormon.

Unfortunately, *we* don't have access to all the church records, but some authorized scholars do and have shown that from the very beginning . . .

The Book of Mormon was thwarted, sabotaged, covered up and whispered down--

the earliest LDS missionaries used the Bible--

the earliest Mormons were more impressed with the idea of being "Gods and Goddesses" someday than they were with feeding the poor and taking care of their families.

And Brigham Young never presumed to be a prophet.

There are those who believe and who have believed for a very long time that the fulness of the priesthood was taken away over a century and a half ago as well--

(see D&C 124)

and another D&C scripture mentions that the final destruction before Jesus comes will start on "His House", which I assume meant His church, or . . . the LDS church.

We've wanted to hear soft words.

And we believed in the 'all or nothing' stuff--

no, it's not all or nothing. Why be a Mormon if you don't use, read, follow the Book of Mormon?

So, it's really a very simple thing. Nobody is going to or wants to produce a 'new' church. Most of *us* who visit Rock's blog are earnestly waiting for, hoping for Jesus to come.

And reading the Book of Mormon.

And, no, we don't follow Rock.

There are a lot of Mormon writers out there who have a real following (who don't have blogs)--

If you read any of them, does that mean you 'follow' them?

Some of us are too poor to buy books, so we visit blogs like Rock's and find we agree with some or much of what he says, and we hang around and discuss it.

Nobody is threatening anyone.

And this latest thing about how Joseph didn't need the plates, so the Book of Mormon isn't real--

just another design on top of so many--

it's astounding how many ways satan has used to get that book to where it isn't read--

by and large, for the entire history of the church, the Book of Mormon has been trumped by the bible--

mentioned many times more, used many times more--

and when the Book of Mormon IS used it is carefully explained, so you don't accidentally realize the book really has a powerful message--

Why be a Mormon if Joseph Smith's presenting the world with the Book of Mormon isn't the most important thing--

and the book itself.

Everything else? Pretty much up for grabs--

Many young people are seriously concerned about everything from temple ceremonies to tithing to why do we teach primary children 'modesty' (kind of creepy, really)--

and some others are going off into forbidden paths, like polygamy, because, well, hey, Brigham did it--

and he was a prophet, right?

No, he wasn't--

He never claimed to be. He even said he wasn't.

He always said, "Joseph is the prophet"--

LDSDPer said...

@Minerals--

Even Brigham Young used to have heated arguments and would occasionaly use his 'authority' to put down Orson Pratt who would say, "we should be reading the Book of Mormon; it's important; Joseph wouldn't have said what he did if it wasn't; what are we doing not reading it?"--

and Brigham would respond, "I did just fine with the Bible before the Book of Mormon came along. I'm doing fine with the bible now."

It did often get heated, but Brigham always pulled the POTC card on Orson.

LDSDPer said...

@Minerals--

Even Brigham Young used to have heated arguments and would occasionaly use his 'authority' to put down Orson Pratt who would say, "we should be reading the Book of Mormon; it's important; Joseph wouldn't have said what he did if it wasn't; what are we doing not reading it?"--

and Brigham would respond, "I did just fine with the Bible before the Book of Mormon came along. I'm doing fine with the bible now."

It did often get heated, but Brigham always pulled the POTC card on Orson.

Kevin said...

LDSDPer,

It's a pity Pratt didn't have a GOOTR (Get Out Of The Rut) card to slip back to ol' Brigham.

LDSDPer said...

@Kevin,


crazy stuff, huh?

I don't think anyone talked back to Brigham. :(

Orson came closer than anyone--

JCM said...

My teenaged daughter was sexually assaulted a few months ago. Her attacker then spread lies and rumors about her at school. Many kids took the rumors and set out to ruin her life, caloing her a slut and a whore, telling her she should kill herself... she was ridiculed and abandoned by former friends, most of them active LDS members. It got so bad that she set a date and plan to kill herself.

Luckily, a friend of hers (non-LDS) told a school counselor, and we have so far been able to change her course. Her school is over 80% LDS, yet most of her new friends, ones that did not abandon her after the vicious rumors started, are not LDS.

Her LDS friends have largely treated her like a dirty kleenex, throwing this beautiful girl away in their minds and hearts. After over 6 months of torment, in and out of school, she began cutting herself. An LDS friend's mother learned of this, and instead of finding out what they could do to help my struggling daughter, a victim of sexual assault, hate crimes, and bullying, the mother forbade her daughter from hanging out with mine.

Of the more than 20 kids who have been turned in to school administration for tormenting my baby girl, 18 are active LDS members. These kids nearly drove my girl to suicide, while active in their church callings, while passing the sacrament, while going to mutual.

The church is broken. Its leadership and many of its members are focused on the polar opposite of Christ's teachings, and it has become blatantly obvious that the kids aren't getting Christ's message.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Minerals Liberia wrote: "my take from your writings on your blog is that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is not the true, honest, and complete authorized Church of Christ.

"When and if you find the "one" please inform the rest of us here so we aren't fooled anymore."

I'm afraid you're laboring under a misconception. I never stated anything of the sort.

I am satisfied that this church is where I belong. But as LDSDPer and others have noted, long ago the Lord told us the WHOLE church was under condemnation, and as Ezra Benson reminded us, that condemnation has never been lifted.

The problem is not that the church is not legitimate; the problem is that the members continue to assume that all is well in Zion when all is decidedly not.

I think the church (as the community of Saints) and the institution itself are in need of repenting. I'm backed up by the Lord on this, as well as the prophets of the Book of Mormon.

By the way, it should go without saying that whenever Friar Tuck deigns to explain my position, as he did in answering you above, he pretty much always gets it wrong.

Anyone wishing to understand my beliefs regarding the church needs look no further than the piece I posted titled "My Testimony of the Church." Better to read my actual words than to make wild assumptions.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/07/my-testimony-of-church.html

Mags said...

For the first time ever, somebody has put into words one of my biggest heartaches. I am in tears now over how succinctly this was put. 5 years ago, I was asked to serve as a ward missionary. This calling disturbed me on so many levels. But the main thing that has bothered me about about the church's "missionary work" is that it has always felt to me that they are just trying to fill the pews. Rather than comfort those in need of comfort or mourn with those that are mourning, they are trying to get people back into activity in the church. I understand the basis behind this, but ultimately asked to be released from that calling as I could not, in good conscience, only make contact with people because my calling told me to. My heart aches for the fact that our beautiful youth, who have so much power to do good in this world, are being taught that anyone who doesn't adhere to the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet is bad and are often excluded because they show their shoulders or some other silly thing like that. What ever happened to teaching our children compassion? Teach them how to love others and if they can't find a way, at least teach them acceptance. I mourn the loss of what the church waste me and what it could be. Thank you for posting this. I hadn't read it before, and it put into words many of the feelings that I have been having for years.

BigA said...

@Smith Family,

Do you have a blog or anything that goes into more detail of your experience?

Cate said...

@JCM,

I am so sorry for your daughter's heartache and suffering. Life can be brutal and we can be unbearably hard on each other. I wish I could just take her in my arms and hold her through this. Please remind her for me, since I cannot tell her face to face, that the promise of the atonement is beauty for ashes. There is hope. There is love. And there is resurrection - a newness of life that follows each death, whether spiritual or physical. Tell her that it is only after we are broken that we can be healed. I have seen this. I have lived this. I know it.

Much love.

Cate said...

@ Mags,

Thanks for adding your voice. I agree, we get so ahead of ourselves and want to "save" people with doctrine, dogma, ordinance, and church membership. Comforting those who stand in need of it, and mourning with the mourners isn't part of the gospel. It is the gospel. Conversion follows as a natural byproduct. When will we learn?

BK said...

Cate said: "Comforting those who stand in need of it, and mourning with the mourners isn't part of the gospel. It is the gospel."



That was a great comment Cate! So true. It's the proof of whether someone is a true disciple or not by how they comfort or ignore the needy. Thanks.

Mags said...

@Cate
I can't tell you how many times I tried to express that exact thing. If we would only express honest and sincere compassion, honestly extend that hand of fellowship, and not focus so much on the numbers, the results they are looking for would be so different and so much better. I don't think that the numbers would necessarily change, but it would create more compassion and understanding in the members. Which would make them better people. Life is hard and we could all use some sort of compassion in our lives.

LDSDPer said...

@JCM,


I am SO, SO sorry. I wish, like Cate, I could wrap my arms around you both.

This happened to a girl in our ward who was the only member of the church in her family--

we live where possibly (my numbers are probably high, my husband says)--

1/2 of 1% of the people within our ward boundaries (which covers more than one large county in a very large state)--

are active LDS.


This young woman, whom my daughter befriended, while other girls and the "YM" ignored her--

very pointedly ignored her and turned her down when she invited them to take her to her school prom (several high schools in our ward)--

didn't actually have a family; she had been in a foster home; she moved into an apartment with girls to go to college, and there she was assaulted.

I knew one woman in the ward who had been assaulted, and I asked if she could point me to some help for this girl--

No; she couldn't.

My daughter continued to reach out to her.

When she, later (not from the assault) had a child out of wedlock the bishop just conveniently disfellowshipped her and then nobody had to worry about her anymore.

My daughter felt terrible, but the young woman was no longer contactable.

So, moving thousands of miles away from where there are 80% Mormons doesn't remove the problem, I am afraid.

I ache whenever I think of this girl; she did move outside our ward--

sometimes my daughter mentions her and says, "I hope she is doing better than the ward wanted her to do."

We have to hope.

I am glad you are getting help for her. Have you considered letting her not be in that environment anymore?

You do have options.

Consider online classes for her for a while. She has every right to it after how she has been treated. Go to battle for her, please.

Don't let her stay in that cesspool. Sometimes people have to get out of the place where they were violated.

Do you have a safe place for her far away, any family members who understand and would treat her well who live far away or far enough away that the filthy, vile words of her attackers (there was more than one if that many young people have turned foul)--

that she can heal?

I have a daughter whose opinions mean a lot to me, because she is very observant. She feels that the church culture with its obsession with modesty does two things--

--it has no impact on anyone who doesn't care; she will dress as she chooses

--those who WANT to be good girls and never hurt anyone will develop a feeling that they can never be good enough and will have to fight a feeling of loathing for themselves that they are female


I agree with her. The culture/church is entirely broken from within--

Go to the principal. Find out what her options are in a safe place. She will have PTSD for a long time. She should not have to go back into the battle zone.

I know you don't know me, but please fight for her. Do not expect the schools, members of the church, anyone else, to care.



LDSDPer said...

@JCM,

I'm sorry; I was heavy-handed. It is not my place to assume you haven't done everything you can possibly do. I apologize for my arrogance.

I feel your pain deeply, and I think some of *us* tend to want to take up arms when we hear about these things, so we cry out, "to arms!"--

You, as her parent, need loving support, not a cry, "to arms!"--

Again, forgive my presumption. I can't go back and edit that.

I don't know specific names, but I will be praying for you and your daughter--

and pray that her tormentors will be removed from being able to harm her anymore.

Kevin said...

JCM,

Good strength to you and your tender daughter. Add my prayers and light to those of Cate and LDSDPer and all of us whose hearts go out to you.

Gary Hunt said...

JCM,

My heart also goes out to you and your daughter. The Lord does love you and her.

Sadly this type of situation is way too common. In my experience the problem originates with the parents. They do not teach their children good moral principles (the Gospel). They leave it up to the church. I know of situations where YM/YW leaders gossiped about certain YM/YW in front of other YM/YW. These type of people are predators. Wed have to learn how to protect ourselves and teach our children how to protect themselves against these predators.

Our prayers and faith are with both of you.

Friar Tuck said...


@Minerals Liberia:

Friar Tuck stated:

"Rock does not believe that we need a "church", he believe that all we need is the Book of Mormon and a belief in Christ. He will quote you a scripture that says, in essence, that whoso ever repents and believes in Christ is his church."

Rock stated:

"That I value and love the church of Christ, there can be no doubt. For as God reminds us in D&C 10:67, His church consists of all those who repent and come unto Him. That includes me. I have repented (and continue to repent), and I have come unto Christ. That makes me a part of the body of Christ, a member of the community of believers that constitutes His church. I love this church because I am the church. As are you, if you meet those two simple qualifications. The church is the members."

Rock also stated:

"By the way, it should go without saying that whenever Friar Tuck deigns to explain my position, as he did in answering you above, he pretty much always gets it wrong."

Now, Minerals Liberia, you tell me if I unfairly characterized Rock's beliefs.

Unfortunately, there is much more to a church that a loosely affiliated group of believers. The Lord's house is a house of order...that is why the Lord called 12 disciples anciently. That is why we have 12 apostles today, and a prophet, and buildings, and auxiliaries, and all the other things that the Lord directed Joseph Smith to create, including temples.

Now if someone like Rock claims that it does not matter if he is excommunicated, that the "leaders" of the church cannot take away his membership, or his priesthood, etc. then what about his temple privileges? Temples are an indispensable part of our religion, that is why the early saints struggled under tremendous pressure to build the Kirkland temple under the direction of Joseph Smith.

So I agree with your assertion, Minerals Liberia, that we have the true church already, but by slight of hand there are those among us that want to reinterpret what it is that constitutes a church.

Ferro Rocher said...

Engaged-

I'm in hospital emergency for some brutal pain right now but will give you my thoughts to your questions when I get out.

Meanwhile if any of you charitable brothers and sisters would to pray for a comment n sinner, I'd so appreciate it. The pain is currently indescribable.

God bless you all
Ferro Rocher

LDSDPer said...

@Ferro Rocher,

praying--

:(

engaged19times said...

Ferro, Thats terrible! Just take it easy. Get back to us when u can! No rush.

37andholding said...

Ferro Rocher,
I just want to say thank you for reposting the series of earlier comments you made and the links there. I read them the first time but hadn't utilized the links. Your words echoed my own thoughts and I appreciate the way you expressed them.
The video with Wayne. Incredible! And very well done.

My prayer was expressed for you, and may God bless you.

Friar Tuck said...

There has been much talk of apostasy in the news. Here are some interesting comments from church leaders:

Joseph Smith said:

"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”
(History of the Church, 3:385)

Heber C. Kimball, while serving as a counselor to President Brigham Young, reported: “I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.”
(Deseret News, Apr. 2, 1856, p. 26)

Orson Hyde, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, reported: “Joseph the Prophet … said, ‘Brethren, remember that the majority of this people will never go astray; and as long as you keep with the majority you are sure to enter the celestial kingdom.’”

Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, June 21, 1870, p. 3.

William G. Nelson reported: “I have heard the Prophet speak in public on many occasions. In one meeting I heard him say: ‘I will give you a key that will never rust,—if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.’ The history of the Church has proven this to be true.”
(“Joseph Smith, the Prophet,” Young Woman’s Journal, Dec. 1906, p. 543;)

Ezra T. Clark remembered: “I heard the Prophet Joseph say that he would give the Saints a key whereby they would never be led away or deceived, and that was: The Lord would never suffer a majority of this people to be led away or deceived by imposters, nor would He allow the records of this Church to fall into the hands of the enemy.”
(“The Testimony of Ezra T. Clark,” July 24, 1901, Farmington, Utah; in Heber Don Carlos Clark, Papers, ca. 1901–74,)

nobody ever said...

@FT

Many here do not share your definition of "church"

The organized "church" as it was when led by the Prophet Joseph Smith, ceased to be after he was taken from us and a portion were lead away by brigham to live polygamy.

So, there has not been any "true" church as an organization since it was fell into apostasy.

There is a great deal missing in this organization that were original teachings of the Savior.

If the church can't follow the rules laid out by the Lord, it is no longer the church of the Lord.

A lot like what has happened to our government. It disregards the Constitution, and it is no longer a Republic.

I guess we couldn't "keep it" after all. :(


37andholding said...

Tuck,
Those references you just posted just show how twisted information gets when it goes through 'glass darkly'.
It like that game of whispering in ones ear and passing it along, it changes drastically. Good try though!

James Brian Marshall said...

So who know's prophecy? When is the Restoration to be restored?

What verses in Isaiah declare such event?


I know, do you?

37andholding said...

Restoration of what? James.

Friar Tuck said...

@37andholding:

These are first hand accounts, much the same as the witnesses to the golden plates. These are people that heard the prophets words and wrote them down, just like every word that Jesus said was written down by someone else. Jesus never wrote a single scripture.

Friar Tuck said...

@nobody ever said...

Those are some awfully bold claims that you make.

You have decided that the church went into apostasy immediately after the death of JS.

You have decided that the church no longer follows the rules and so the savior has dissolved it.

Wow, I guess you are a prophet in your own right.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Oh Friar Tuck, whatever are we to do with you?

Even when you quote me, it's clear you don't get it.

Interesting, though, that you would quote Joseph Smith, and then follow that quote with a string of men misquoting his meaning long after he was dead. Just as 37andHolding observed, those quotes resemble the game of telephone, where each successive attempt to repeat something just gets the original statement increasingly misconstrued.

Before you deign to present an argument with such certainty, you maybe ought to make yourself aware of the context in which Joseph Smith made that statement. He was not speaking to the general membership; on the contrary, he was giving stern warnings to a small group consisting of the Twelve and a few Seventies as they were about to depart to preach the gospel.

Read those words again,but this time take note of his audience. Half those men had recently been called to replace members of the quorum who had either left the church or been excommunicated after growing arrogant and feeling that because they held rank in the church, they were of superior caste than the common member.

Joseph Smith never used the word "Church" to refer to the hierarchy. He was, you'll recall, the recipient of the revelation in D&C 10:67, and knew the definition of the word. He did not use it the way we often hear it used today, to refer to those at Church headquarters.

The prophet knew what "church" meant, even if you don't. In his counsel the prophet was referring to the actual church, the members, the everyday rank and file converts who made up the community of Christ.

So perhaps you might want to read that statement the way Joseph Meant it. "That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the MEMBERS, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

If Joseph Smith wanted to warn the members not to find fault with him and the other leaders, he would have said something to the members in a general meeting. Instead he gave his warning to the leaders, because he knew from sad experience how easy it is for those in positions of authority to let their own sense of self importance go to their heads.

You can read the prophet's entire speech IN CONTEXT by looking it up in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,": pages 155-162. Joseph's counsel is a bit longer and more involved than you tried to portray it with your usual smug certainty.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

(Continued)

And if you still feel Brother Joseph was warning the members not to criticize the leadership, of which he was a major component, I offer this vignette as quoted in Truman Madsen's "Joseph Smith The Prophet":

"When I have heard of a story about me [and he could have said there had been many], I sit down and think about it and pray about it, and I ask myself the question, ‘Did I say something or was there something about my manner to give some basis for that story to start?’ And, Sister, often if I think about it long enough I realize I have done something to give that basis. And there wells up in me a forgiveness of the person who has told that story, and a resolve that I will never do that thing again.”

[Truman Madsen]:"One of the great qualities of the Prophet Joseph, not always characteristic of others, is that when he was wrong he acknowledged it. The Lord rebuked him several times. Those revelations are published alongside the revelations in which he is given promises and blessings. Had he been less sincere, less honest--less of a prophet--he might have tried to suppress the personal, private rebukings and let the Church believe that he’d gone along pretty well without lapsings and slippings. But he didn’t. And when others found fault with him, instead of confrontation, putting all the blame on them, the spirit of his counsel to himself as to this sister was otherwise: “Look deeper, Brother, and see if maybe there is a kernel of truth in what they are saying.” That, I suggest, shows wisdom."

-Truman Madsen, Joseph Smith the Prophet pg 94-95

37andholding said...

Rock, sometimes I can spot 'em but can't explain 'em.
You did a terrific job of 'splainin'. ;)
Thank you! I learn so much.

nobody ever said...

That description of JS sounds like the exact opposite of BY, Wonder why that is?.. lol

Minerals Liberia said...

The author writes: "Other churches in my town don't own malls. They run soup kitchens. They don't just sponsor BSA troops, they hold AA meetings. These churches help felons find jobs, sponsor immigrants and help their members adopt children from war torn nations. Churches in my city have homeless ministries, outreach programs for the elderly and impoverished, and their women gather to pour out their hearts in prayer for the suffering that goes on around the world. They actively fight against human trafficking, they consciously support ethical trade and are aware of the price paid by third world workers to support a first world lifestyle. They speak against injustice, proclaim peace, and create welcoming environments for people who sin differently."


My observation of the above is perplexing as I know many LDS faithful that are involved in many of these activities....in fact what is precluding the author from doing exactly the same thing as an LDS member?

Additionally, having traveled the world I have seen many of these same faith based "churches" involved in "charity" activities which there people were actually enriching themselves. Constantly requesting donations to support there very extravagant lifestyles. I am sure there many groups that don't subscribe to this type of behavior....but for what I have seen, once you scratch under the surface you start to see the abuse of power and money.

Too all those that are using this forum to dissect the humanistic personalities of the every past and present LDS Church leader.... Please read: 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

For we all require grace from day to day....

James Brian Marshall said...

@37andholding


I am posting a link as my answer to you was 4097 characters and un-postable.

I have posted my answer to my blog, the Latter Day Saint Flash Light.

As Jesus is my flash light, I can turn Him on or off by my actions, I thought the name was appropriate.

Here is the link. Would love your feed back as this is the first post ever to this site.

http://latterdaysaintsflashlight.blogspot.com/

Please be advised I have other blogs. All my life, I've had a problem with the Salt Lake Church, as has the whole RLDS Church. But the Lord has shown me since 2008 I must be different. Because otherwise I'm just as bad as Brigham Young.

My attitude toward "Mormons" used to be less than charitable. But I've taken a few chastisements from God, had lots of time to think about the situation and have changed a great deal.

As I've watched the priest craft in my own church, studied scripture, became ordain a priest, I realized there was no good guy, bad guys.

We're either real with God, or we're not. So I've had to repent an awful lot, even in how I treat LDS members.

Point being, you get to see the good, the bad and the ugly of me on my blogs. So go to it.

God Bless

James Brian Marshall said...

Friar Tuck,

Rock and Company are actually just being charitable about when the apostasy began.

I have just posted an answer to 37 and holding pertaining this very topic.

However it's titled the Healing of the Restoration. But the same scriptures apply to the apostasy.

These scriptural evidences show what was happening in the church before Joseph was martyred.

The Rebellion against Joseph Smith began as early as section 43 of the D&C.

To read more:
http://latterdaysaintsflashlight.blogspot.com/

nobody ever said...

@ James

Indeed, there were always "wolves" and false doctrines.

Individual apostasy always occurring.But when the Prophet called by the Lord himself was taken, it was all lost.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-im-abandoning-polygamy.html


37andholding said...

James, thank you for your response to my inquiry about 'restoration' of what.
I read your blog post. I'm impressed! I very much appreciate what you've shared. I'm really thinking about it.

Ariel said...

As a church member who became a "worldly sinner" in some ways, I believe that God is love. He isn't going to condemn me for having wonky hair or having more piercings in my body than we're "allowed". He isn't going to reject me because I cuss like a sailor sometimes and drink alcohol at restaurants. And even though I haven't been to church in almost 6 years, I know He still loves me and guides me when I need it. I might forget to pray every night, but I know He's glad to hear from me when I do remember, even when I'm complaining.

I could be considered a "fallen child" by Mormon standards and Heavenly Father might be disappointed in me sometimes, but like my earthly father, I know He accepts that I'm my own person and make my own choices. He's not going to stop loving me because I do things He doesn't always agree with. We both know that, in the long run, it doesn't matter that I've strayed, because I'm still heading in the right direction, regardless of my stumbling.

Now, what I've found, is that most Mormons don't realize that people in their ward or branch can be just as nasty and corrupt as people outside of the church. Domestic abuse, alcoholism, bullying - these are all very real things that occur everywhere, including within Mormon churches. Members need to stop diluting themselves. They're just like everyone else.

Friar Tuck said...

Rock Said:

" Joseph's counsel is a bit longer and more involved than you tried to portray it with your usual smug certainty."

Wow. All I did was post what I thought was some interesting quotes, with zero commentary, and you somehow construe that it was done with "smug certainty".

I guess that I am somehow misquoting you again, because you are such an enigma.

Friar Tuck said...

Rock:

You seem to go to great lengths to justify your criticism of church leaders, while you also criticize me for suggesting that you are wrong in your criticisms. Do you realize how silly you sound?

I am somehow less informed than you because I refuse to point out the splinter in the eye of a given leader when I have a beam in my own eye? You are the one that seems smug to me, but I say that with all the love in my heart. Just kidding.

Friar Tuck said...

Rock:

So I guess the Book of Mormon was translated according to the rules of the "game of telephone" because Mormon took other people's writings and put them into his own words.

And then Joseph Smith took reformed Egyptian and translated it into English, even though there were no doubt many words that did not directly translate.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Minerals Liberia wrote, "I know many LDS faithful that are involved in many of these activities....in fact what is precluding the author from doing exactly the same thing as an LDS member?"

Right you are, Minerals, there is nothing stopping us from reaching out on our own. But wouldn't it be wonderful if we could be allowed to participate in charitable works through our own local congregations without being blocked by the bureaucracy at Church headquarters?

I addressed this very concern in an earlier comment. See the posting under my name on June 10th at 7:49.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

James Brian Marshall,
It's always good to hear from you, and I'm delighted to see you are now blogging. I've added your website, "Latter-day Saints Flashlight" to my blogroll. The research you have presented on your current page is indispensable, and I hope all my readers will stop by and have a look.

That link again:

http://latterdaysaintsflashlight.blogspot.com/

Alan Rock Waterman said...

JCM,
The story you relate is heartbreaking. I recall Paul Toscano addressing the reasons so many of us (especially among the youth) seem to be devoid of kindness toward those among us who are truly hurting.

Teachings in the Church seem almost designed to create a people who are inward focused. We are warned to defend ourselves against any possible breach of our persons in our lessons regarding chastity, modesty, etc. The children's book written by Wendy Ballard says it all in the title: "Not Even Once."

The message that is received is that if we "allow" ourselves to falter (or in the case of your daughter, "allowing" herself to be violated)we are forever tainted and unworthy.

What a shame. It breaks my heart that this Church is so often CAUSING pain in others rather than helping to heal it.

Friar Tuck said...

Excellent article at "Wheat and Tares" that I suggest everyone peruse.

http://www.wheatandtares.org/14453/beware-the-bride-of-christ-a-few-thoughts-on-excommunication/

Jewish LDS said...

Incredible...

Jewish LDS said...

Regardless, in the current debate, of who is wrong or right, there does seem to be a disconnect between church elite, and rank and file. I remember, thirty years ago, a church that inspired, and motivated me. I remember a decade ago, a church that came to the rescue of my family whem a family member fell ill with two different types of cancer. These are items that I will always be grateful for.

I think we generalize what goes on "at the top", and, possibly, rightly so. But, I have seen wonderful members respond to individuals, and groups who need help/love.

The "Church" has become a paradox. I believe, you cannot preach commandments, and hammer the everyday Saint, without first helping the rank and file, as Lehi states, be encircled "by the arms of His love".

Friar Tuck said...

@Jewish LDS:

You are right...there is a disconnect. I appreciate your comments because that proves to me the obvious fact that people already know the church has problems. You also recognize that the church does good. Do you feel as I do that complaining about problems in the church is not productive?

Jewish LDS said...

@ Friar Tuck (love the handle)

Complaining? No, open dialogue, yes. I hope there is a difference. I think from the top to the bottom, there needs to be a realoty check: life long members are walking away, apparently convert baptisms are down, members who were once faithful araren't joining other churches - but becoming atheistic, disillusioned, angry, and hateful. (Not that being an atheist causes disillusionment, anger or hate...)

I understand where you are coming from, I would suggest, that many are just frustrated, certainly some may just complain. But, at the same time, many (including the current post by Cate) voice some legitimate concerns.

Thank you for your return post.

Gary Hunt said...

Friar Tuck,

I read the "Wheat and Tares" post. Now I think I understand better where you are coming from. However I still disagree. Nate, the author, has misapplied the meaning of the examples he uses. In fact his metaphors sound very Catholic.

1. The church is not our mother. As Rock has quoted to you many times, we (believers who have repented and come unto him)are the church not the technical - earthly organization. The church will cease to exist after this life. If the earthy organization church is the bride of Christ then why will he divorce or abandon it after this life?

2. The "Honor Thy Mother" part to me is especially creepy to me. This is something which reeks with mind control philosophy. It is utter garbage.

3. The Kate = Hagar and John = Uzziah is a real streatch.

4. Church = family vs. democracy. This is also a false premise to try to apply. Why do we have the "Law of Common Consent"?

In all of these areas the author (Nate) has realy gone way beyong the mark. He starts with a false premise (sand) and built his whole argument upon it. In other words he is wresting the scripture to fit his premise and not building upon a rock foundation. And no I am not meaning "Rock" Waterman.

Nates philosophy is the philosophy that used by predators, tyrants and abusers in order to keep their victim under their control.

Gary Hunt said...

By the way, Nate did make it sound really nice.

Jewish LDS said...

I made a mistake in a previous post, members of the "Church" should never be "hammered". That phrase is inappropriate in regards to anyone associated with any religion, or group.

Gary Hunt said...

Jewish LDS,

"Hammered" is an appropriate term. Many churches hammer ideas (nails) into the minds (board) of their members so that they will stick good deep.

Friar Tuck said...

@Gary Hunt:

I appreciate your opinion, but it is that, your opinion. Maybe his examples are not great, but there are many in the church that feel as Nate does, and I don't think they can be dismissed as crackpots.

One thing that bothers me about critics of the church is that they often make it seem as if they have a leg up on TBMs. If you read the other article on "Wheat and Tares" about Republicans and liberals it illustrates that point.

Most people approach religion from am emotional standpoint. You are a very logical person, and that is fine, but religion deals in many metaphysical topics that often defy logic. As I have stated before, nobody is permanently converted to the gospel by factual evidence, but by the spirit. Many TBMs have a extremely strong spiritual witness that critics are trying to overcome with logic. This is why so many people are violently opposed to people like John Dehlin that represent an intellectual response to church questions. Look at Kate Kelly...she is using political maneuvering and the media to accomplish her goals. TBMs believe in obedience and to what they understand to be the truth. It is like a Mormon version of Pascal's wager...TBMs feel like what harm can possibly come to me through obedience, yet if I were to rebel, I am putting me spiritual well-being on the line.

Kevin said...

I'd agree with you, Gary, that the Church-as-mother metaphor is a creepy bit of wishful thinking and provides a framework for abuses by well-intentioned leaders who may forget D&C 121:41.

I don't think having concerns about the humanness of Church leaders and their decisions in the name of the Lord is the same as rebelling against them, Friar Tuck. I think Cate has done a great job raising the question of an organization with income in the billions of dollars doing relatively little to follow the Master's admonition to care for the poor. Of critical importance is each of us doing whatever we can to serve and mourn with those around us. Zion will not come from the top down, it will manifest from the bottom up.

engaged19times said...

Friar Tuck, The mormon church leaders can be criticized as the day is long in my view, and no blasted scripture of questionable origins ought to be used to support ur view that church leaders are above the law!

Mormon church leaders, setting themselves up as paragons of wisdom and virtue....they make like they have seen god similar to how ppl pretend santa is real to their children. Then they say, Oh my experiences are too sacred to share. And the rank and file members eat that up and that perpetuates the leader worship. My thought is, if if someone says its too sacred to share, it didn happen. Period. Mormons are THE WORST about putting on airs about how spiritual they are...and the leaders dont help matters. I would LOVE to get in front of one of those clowns and unleash my tongue about what fake phony duplicitous entitled jerks the whole lot of them are.

We have every right to criticize mormon leaders.

engaged19times said...

Also, yes the leaders do sell their religion thru emotions. In fact they have tradmarked their process its called Heartsell.

Gary Hunt said...

Friar Tuck,

Are you familiar with and/or studied the philisophical concepts of the "Sacred Masculine" and the "Sacred Feminine"? If you did you would see the fallacy of his arguments.

James 2:14-18 states...

14 What profit is it, my brethren, for a man to say he hath faith, and hath not works? can faith save him?

15 Yea, a man may say, I will show thee I have faith without works; but I say, Show me thy faith without works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.

16 For if a brother or sister be naked and destitute, and one of you say, Depart in peace, be warmed and filled; notwithstanding he give not those things which are needful to the body; what profit is your faith unto such?

17 Even so faith, if it have not works is dead, being alone.

18 Therefore wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead and cannot save you?

Another scripture D&C 93:36 states...

36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

There has to be a balance between faith and works; emotion (feelings)and intelligence (logic); "Sacred Feminine" and "Sacred Masculine". Nates post was all "Sacred Feminine" with no real logic. When you have a sitiuation where the "Sacred Feminine" (faith) rules you get people with a victim mentality. When you have only the "Sacred Masculine" (works)you get overly aggressive people (predators) such as the "Neocons" which Rock described in his last article. Yes, they are real people with a real philosophy and wield real power in Washington D.C.

From what I have read of your writings, I would guess that you lean more towards the "Sacred Feminine" but see value in the "Sacred Masculine" but have not balanced out the two. In other words you are stuck in a state of cognitive dissonance and are trying to "serve two masters).

BTW "Pascal's Wager" has a number of logical fallacies in it. However, I do believe it has some value in making decisions regarding unknowns.

LDSDPer said...

@Jewish LDS (or is that LDS Jewish)--

THANK you for making me smile on here for the first time in days/weeks--

When you said, "the LDS church is a paradox", and then you imply you are Jewish (and Christian/LDS), all I could think is "Jews KNOW what paradox means in a way that Christians cannot."

Beautiful. (No, I'm not being saracastic)

My husband has a lot of Jewish relatives. We love them, though I will admit that those who have converted to Christianity (and had it stick), and those who have converted to Judaism (and had it stick) are much easier to deal with than those who have become angry atheists/nothing.

That is a very hard thing to see, and it's, well, it's heart-breaking.

I had a Jewish missionary companion, and she was a real corker. But so very loveable. Her family joined the church together, and she had a big LDS support group, and when she found herself it Asia, it was VERY hard, and she wanted to go home.

She found everything inexplicable, but she was so bright, so intelligent, so spiritual, and so WINNING in her personality.

She was determined to go home, and I told her she was free to do so, but we did a lot of fun things (and some missionary work as we were doing the fun things), and she fell in love and finished her mission.

I can still see her, her huge smile.

What a lady!

Only Jews really know what a paradox is.

And when you said that, something in me resonated.

Thank you. Your responses are intelligent. Balanced.

You didn't know that by saying something so ostensibly simple you would make someone smile, did you?

:)

LDSDPer said...

@Gary,

I always read what you have to say. I don't have anything to say, because you say it so well.

:)

LDSDPer said...

@Minerals,

I think I used to be where you are now.

I found that my heart opened and got bigger towards all people when I stopped feeling I had to 'defend' *my own* (Americans, Mormons, my heritage, though I'm still working on one aspect of that)--

I realized that collectivizing is dangerous.

If it's true, it's true, wherever it is, whomever it is (a person)--

The church/my country (messed up as it is, I say the country, because there is a person on here who implies that anyone who discusses the church is being critical of it)--

can do without my defense. Let them stand or fall based upon their own integrity, not my false sentiment about *them*.

It's very freeing, and one of the things that happens if that *you* begin to see the tremendous good in people who are not *your own*.

I recommend it. When I started doing that, I found that the world was a very different place from what I had thought.

I had spent so much time building a tent around my own culture to protect it, and I realized that if it needed a tent, it wasn't worth protecting.

Just a suggestion, if you care to read.

Now I'm quite careful not to attack 'outsiders', because I find that many of *my own* people are SO good at it, that I don't need to do it.

And many of *my own* people are so good at marching and carrying, "I'm better, because I'm Mormon" signs that I don't need to do that either.

It's more peaceful.

LDSDPer said...

@engaged,

I'm enjoying your continued comments.

BK said...

Friar Tuck said: "As I have stated before, nobody is permanently converted to the gospel by factual evidence, but by the spirit. Many TBMs have a extremely strong spiritual witness that critics are trying to overcome with logic."




I realize that many in the church stay or believe in it because of a 'spiritual witness or revelation', but such is a very risky foundation, for we can be so easily deceived by warm fuzzies or false revelation telling us our particular church is true or God's will for us.

People choose to believe their spiritual experiences because it's easier, (few ever think their revelation is false) then having to prove all things and study, stand up for and live Christ's teachings.

It's easier to just say 'God told me this is true or right' then to have to prove it.

People in every religion or church believe God has told them their church is right or true or best for them.

Christ did not tell us to base our choices on warm fuzzies or even revelation, but on proven facts. Christ and his disciples warned us to 'prove all things' by comparing them with his teachings, before supporting something or someone.

If we are honest, sincere and have charity we can easily prove if something or someone is right or not, by comparing them with what Christ taught. That's the sure way to prove churches, people or revelation.

We shouldn't and don't have to base our choices on so called 'spiritual experiences' or warm fuzzies that everyone is so easily deceived by. Feelings can't prove anything, for we can't even be sure they come from God, as much as we might want to think they do.

God gave us a brain and he expects us to study and reason things out as well as live his laws, so we can discern truth from error based on proof and sure knowledge not feelings or what we think is personal revelation.

The BoM falsely teaches us to base our testimony on feelings and personal revelation, which is contrary to Christ's teachings and thus why so many are led astray to support unrighteousness in the Church.

I believe the Holy Spirit is real, it's just everyone, even prophets, are so easily deceived to think human emotions or the Adversary's revelation or promptings are from the Holy Spirit, when they aren't.

Thus why people in every religion are sure their religion is the right one and they have God's assurance of it.

I believe the Holy Spirit conveys pure knowledge far more then warm feelings.

Thus why Christ said to prove people and churches based on facts, things you can prove, not feelings.

We can prove Christ's doctrines by living them, we don't have to just take them on faith that they are true and make sense.

LDS Jewish said...

I am laughing,

LDS Jewish is the right term. May I suggest, that I am the residual effect of German Jewish descendents that lost it all in the 1930's. Amnd for them, ended in suicide.

I have read Rock for a time now, and am jumping in. I find this blog fascinating. Both the topics, and replies.

A good day to all.

LDSDPer said...

BK, the way you put that today really makes sense.

Thank you.

Mike Hamill said...

"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”
(History of the Church, 3:385)

Interesting how immediately and frequently that portion of the quote tends to fall by the wayside. Most of the people I see lamenting today don't ascribe this attribute to themselves, but in fact the opposite. So it would seem they don't really qualify as apostate, according to this quote from Joseph Smith...

Rock, I really find interesting how you noted the context of the above quote essentially reverses the direction in which this statement is being made. It is not given to members concerning leaders, it is given to leaders concerning members. Much like the verses from Malachi concerning tithing. Nowadays we all hear it in church as condemnation of the membership for not paying tithing, when in fact reading the full chapter makes clear that the condemnation is directed solely at the leadership of the day, who are stealing from the tithing funds to line their own pockets out of fear they might not have enough otherwise. God was telling the leaders to pony up and have a little faith in Him. I wonder how often this sort of directional flipping takes place with scriptures and quotes.

LDSDPer said...

@LDS Jewish,

And the world stood by. It's easy to find the monsters who were reponsible for the direct atrocities--

but so much harder for the 'west' to take the blame it deserves.

All those nations that refused to let Jews immigrate and then waited until Jews were nearly decimated to stage an elaborate 'rescue'. The shame. And when so much of it (not all, probably; I'm not that unrealistic) could have been prevented. Jews were watching all over Europe and applying for entrance into all the 'allied' countries. I have read quite a lot about it, and I just shudder.

So sorry.

LDS Jewish said...

Thank you LDSDPer. I came 30 years after the fact, pretend outrage would be honest. And, although Germany might be the most sophisticated country in Europe (Well, maybe not, Angela Merkel's statement that the multicultural experiment was over), not much has changed in many other parts of the World. Genocide goes on daily.

When I was in Germany 25 years ago, there seemed to be an underlying embarrassment of what happened. When my childdren were there 5 years ago, the first thing the Dutch would say after looking at them is, "You must be German." And, the Germans would say, "You must be Jewish." They were treated like princesses. Regardless history repeats itself at any time, and any place.

As smug as we like to be in the US, Manifest Destiny was no more than a 19th Century prequel to Lebensraum.

Aside from that, I read Dana's blog. I find here journey, quick journey, interesting. Many of us have struggled, some of us have turned back to the "church" (me), while others have not. In 100 years some historian will have to research, and study this time in LDS Church history.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Gary, I agree with your analysis of Nate's flawed analogy over at Wheat & Tares. Rather than take Jesus' analogy at his face regarding the groom and the bride, he has this idea the we members are somehow separate from the church/bride, so he decides there must be a third entity, the "children."

With all due respect to Nate, his analogy is flawed because it proceeds from a false assumption; that is, that WE members down here are somehow separate from "the church." Yet if we are to believe Christ's definition of the church, it consists of ALL who repent and come unto me. We ARE the church. WE are the bride collectively, not some separate entity that exists outside and separate from the church.

The analogy assumes there is a separate entity called " the Church" that consists of the leaders. Yet God makes no such distinction between those at the top of the hierarchy and what the author labels the "children" at the bottom. We are all equally defined in D&C 10:67 at The church. There is no dividing line.

Our doctrine and instructions come from the groom, and Him alone. If we assume there is a class of more elite members at the top who can decide doctrine absent direct and unmistakable revelations given through Him in the same manner they were given to our founding prophet, then we have corrupted the whole idea of the bride/church, and created an idol that we look to for our salvation.

There is a bride, and there is a groom. That's Christ's analogy. It fails when you define the bride as being separated into classes, one higher than the other.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Jewish LDS,
There's a facebook page for those of us who are Jewish by blood and LDS by faith, "The Mormon Yeshiva."

I was just notified of another yesterday, but I forget what it's called. Do you know of it?

Friar Tuck said...

@engaged19times:

Surely you recognize the value of a church organization, do you not?

Not every one agrees with what America does, but we have laws, and leaders, and admittedly a pretty good life. People endlessly criticize American leaders, but it leads to a lot of finger pointing and gridlock, and stifles the government. Every politician thinks that his way is right. In the end, all politicians are equally wrong, in my eyes.

It is the same in every Earthly organization and the church. It is so, so easy to point fingers and blame others. Who said Mormon leaders are perfect? Maybe some think they are, but at the end of the day they are as fallible as anyone else.

The Lord has prescribed the form his church would take. Heck, Joseph Smith started the group of 50, or whatever it was called, to eventually minister over the entire world in a civil sense. (This is my understanding). In the end, the group was disbanded without ever accomplishing anything. EVEN JOSEPH SMITH MADE MISTAKES.

So we have these structures that are appendages to the church, like the apostles and first presidency. Have you ever asked yourself why the Lord made these lifetime callings? Why did he not allow for ejecting bad leaders by term limits? The truth is, the Lord knew long ago that the church would fall into disarray. That is why the scriptures tell us of one mighty and strong that will set the church in order. The church was organized to fail. The church has failed every time it has been organized.

What we do in the meantime is to continue to operate within the framework that the gospel law allows. Some are sick of it and want to leave the church. Some want to moan and complain. Some are content to stay where they are and try to make the best of a bad situation. Some think there is nothing wrong at all.

You must ask yourself which approach will accomplish the most good. Will leaving the church and striking out on your own accomplish anything? Will endless complaining accomplish anything?

It takes a village to run a church. Temples are way beyond the scope of a small group or a single person to build, and temple work is vital. None of the commandments the Lord has given us have been rescinded, except for polygamy (if you believe it). So what will you do with your life? Will you stand idly by, complaining, while the work of the Lord creeps forward? What is your plan to establish Zion?

We live in a Telestial world, with people that are trying to be Celestial, people that are murderers, and people that really don't give a crap about anything. Why do we complain about things we cannot change when we should swallow our pride and push the work of the Lord forward instead of stubbornly fighting other Telestial people? Everyone on this Earth is Telestial. Maybe you think you are something else. I don't claim to be anything but Telestial. This is why I think temple recommend interviews are somewhat silly, because we are all sinners, and a temple recommend just means that the holder is perhaps less of a sinner than someone down the street, but a sinner nonetheless.

So why don't we quit with the pretenses, and realize that we are all sinners, and no one is better than anyone else? Why do we have to condemn people when the Lord has taught us that free agency is the greatest gift in the universe. The problem is, when free agency is exercised there is always a cost, good or bad.

Not to worry. No one will escape god's judgments, not even prophets. Why do we insist that these "bad" leaders must be exposed as liars and hypocrites? I bet you are not a liar or hypocrite, are you?

1/3 of the host of heaven rebelled against god, 1/3!!!!!!!And these are spirits that were literally in the presence of god, soaking up his goodness, and truth.

Friar Tuck said...

ContinuedSo I think every person needs to take responsibility for his own life. God makes the rain fall on the wicked and the righteous. Even the Nephites that were taken into captivity by the Lamanites were told to bear their burdens and the Lord would deliver them in due time.

How do we know that the Lord is not punishing us with "bad" leaders because of our collective sins? How do we know that the leaders are not doing exactly what the Lord wants them to, to try our patience, test our resolve, and measure our valiance?
Why do Telestial people think that they have all the answers and have reached a state of nirvana that enables them to rise above their brotheren?

Go to an AA meeting. The first thing anyone says when they soeak is "I am________, and I am an alcoholic". They say this without regard to how long they have been sober. They own the fact that they possess personal weakness and preface any enlightening comments that they may make with this important disclaimer.

nobody ever said...

@FT

"They own the fact that they possess personal weakness and preface any enlightening comments that they may make with this important disclaimer."

Perhaps if the leaders of the church would preface every statement they made with an admission that they had never actually seen or spoken with the Lord, and have never received a revelation, I would totally agree.

engaged19times said...

Nobody, that is a very concise statement which describes how i feel. Mormon leaders need to preface everything they say with, I have never seen the Lord. AND the warm fuzzies u feel when i speak are because i am trained to talk in a way which makes u feel warm and fuzzy so u will pay money to get into heaven. The way the conference center is lit, the music, the speech patterns and rhythmns...all to give u "the spirit." Heartsell TM.

And how is this church not a cult again?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ferro Rocher,
I hope you're out of the hospital by now. PM me, will you p[ease? I'm on Facebook, or email at RockWaterman@gmail.com

You to, please, "Nobody." I'd like to get in touch with both of you.

nobody ever said...

"She said that soon after she posted comments anonymously in an online chat room, her bishop sent her emails quoting what she had written and questioning her about her beliefs. On June 1, she said, her bishop phoned and told her to stop posting or face a church disciplinary hearing."

How creepy and low is that, Is this a "church" or a cult?.. Spying on it's members? Where are we East Germany? This type of controlling behavior will not bode well for the organization.

I've heard Mormonism being called "Scientology lite" But,I think it's getting heavier.

I do not want to be in a "church" that snoops me out, I don't think this is how the Savior would lead his church. By creating fear and mistrust.

I would like to take this moment to share my testimony, that I know this church is through.

nobody ever said...

"Through supernatural means, by the power of the Holy Ghost, devout persons are permitted to have visions and to see within the veil. They are enabled to see spiritual personages and to view scenes hidden from ordinary sight.

These visions are gifts of the Spirit. (Seventh Article of Faith.) They come by faith and vanish away when faith dies out. (1 Sam. 3:1; Isa. 29:9-14.) Thus they stand as an evidence of the divinity of the Lord’s work in any age.

If the Lord is giving visions and revelation to a people, such group constitutes the people of God. If visions and revelations are not being received by any church or people, then that group is not the Lord’s people. By this test the identity of the true Church is known. (Moro. 7:30-38.)

… Visions serve the Lord’s purposes in preparing men for salvation. By them knowledge is revealed (2 Ne. 4:23), conversions are made (Alma 19: 16), the gospel message is spread abroad, the church organization is perfected (D. & C. 107:93), and righteousness is increased in the hearts of men.

And visions are to increase and abound in the last days, for the Lord has promised to pour out his ‘spirit upon all flesh,’ so that ‘old men shall dream dreams,’ and ‘young men shall see visions.’ (Joel 2:28-32.)"

-Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve

"Having, in this chapter, treated upon several of the most prominent Spiritual Gifts, the reader will be able to clearly discover the vast difference between the religion of heaven, as revealed in the Bible, and the false religions of the nineteenth century.

… Where can you find the man of God who, by the power of the Holy Ghost, can see visions or dream dreams, or interpret the same by inspiration?

… Modern Christianity answers, NOWHERE. … All are as dead in regard to the promised Spiritual Gifts, as the putrid carcases, mouldering in their cemeteries."

-Orson Pratt of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles


"Revelation no longer comes by vision, but in the ‘still, small voice,’ like that heard by Elijah."

-Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the Church

Anonymous said...

It is so easy to criticize. So easy to say you know what's best. You either believe in a modern day prophet and apostles or you don't. Criticizing and openly rebelling and publicly holding them in disdain and trying to get others too as well just shows what you have chosen. So why stay? Leave and live your life the way you want. If feel the church doesn't do enough to help others (which I can see why you would think that what with the millions in aid we give to others, the countless hours members tend to devote to their communities-sheesh people) then get off your high horse and just go about doing good. Do you need to be directed in all things? But if the church did ask more of us, then there would be whining that they ask too much. So just fish or cut bait. I am sick of hearing all the complaining and whining. There is a lot of "The apostles need to be perfect but that doesn't apply to me as well" going on. And frankly, the sorrow of watching friends leave the church is coupled with relief that I don't have to hear about it anymore.-ALA

James Brian Marshall said...

@ engaged19times

Over all, having read several of your comments, I tend to agree with you, but would add a comment and concern to yours.

There are more ways to see the Lord God than with our physical spiritual eyes.

To say I have not seen the Lord, when you have experience the presence of the Holy Ghost, would be a flat out lie.

To say I have not seen the Lord, when we bask in the beauty of the earth, the glory of the sky, the wonders of nature, would be a lie. For they also are part of the Lords body and represent and serve Him.

We all have seen the Lord, from the least to the greatest of us. We all have seen Him. Just because He stand not before us in His glory, does that mean we have seen Him less?

What did Jesus say about those who believed "on your words" not having seen the miracles and glories of God.

"more blessed are they" He said... Because they have the really sharp inner eye.

So say we have not seen the Lord's body, also would not be quite accurate. Just because you see my body, my physical representation of what I appear to be to you, does that mean you seen all of me? Or I all of you? By no means!

So people need to go easy on those priests and Elders who are a bit conceited. Because we also are exactly that same way. Just different than they.

We are more discerning and results oriented... (hopefully)

Not excusing the fakers in the church, but we can criticize and never become real ourselves. Critisizing our brothers is a trap.

The RLDS did it for years to the "Mormons" and now they have what you guys have. Total and utter apostasy.

When we criticize others, the Lord give us the lives and reality of our brother to live, to humble us. It's called damnation.

We need be very careful how we discuss what we say.

engaged19times said...

ALA and James, Ur both brainwashed. And I wouldnt be surprised to learn somehow ur benefactors of the nepotistic system of selecting mormon church leaders, so naturally u want to portray ppl like me as whiners/complainers. I used to think mormons had all the answers too. That is all. Feel free to have the last word. Have a great day:)

engaged19times said...

Also, I feel quite FREE of the evil mind clutches of the mormon church. I was married to a nevermo n a heathen wedding ceremony. So I have nothing to lose by talking smack about the mormon church, its hoity toity leaders, and fake phony members who wear their hearts on their sleeves.

GrittyPretty said...

That was beautiful! Thanks for your blog and for this guest post!

LDS Jewish Dude said...

Thank you Rock, I will check that out.

LDSDPer I should have written:Pretend outrage would be dishonest. Amazing how a prefix can change a sentence. Apparently Germany has a program where they give cash money to descendants of Holocaust victims.

For whatever reason, I do not feel compelled to pursue such a bounty.

Back to our topic however. I enjoy Cate's thought process on her essay, and the essay she presents. As stated previously, there is a widening gap (disconnect if you will) between the membership in general, and leadership. But, even within rank and file, a gap seems to be emerging. Maybe it has always exhisted. Theoretically two subgroups seems to be emerging: 1) the tow the line Saints who have been rooted in Old Testament law and punishment, and b) Sants who want to apply Christ's teachings. I am not sure many of this group think certain behaviors are okay, but, I think through the love of Christ, they come to accept people for who they are, embrace those of us who struggle, truly hold hands with the suffering, and believe at a human level we all want the same thing, regardless of religious beliefs, gender, color, or country.

When Elder Holland speaks about being tolerant of sin (particularly homosexuality) is not following the precepts of the church (implied), then where does that put, "Love they neighbor as thyself"? That phrase is attached to the greatest commqndment, charity. As you all know, Paul tells us, without charity we are nada. There were contradictory messages last conference. Do you love your neigbor?

In closing, I remember possibly my favorite prophet, President Benson stating: We don't love the sin, but we love the sinner. Possibly as a whole we have regressed from that simple truth.

Unknown said...

You know what? She's right. That talk wasn't for her. It was for my friend Orr, who believes God loves us all He will forgive any non-repentant action, any selfless apathy, any outright rebellion and offer to all the same blessing and kingdom, because why shouldn't He love us that much?
It was for my sister in law who is investigating the church and having trouble reconciling the doctrine of a loving God with teachings against homosexual lifestyles.
It was apparently for her home ward, who seems to think they can ignore those in greatest need and still curry God's favor.
And maybe come to think of it, it really was for her. Because she sure seemed to take the core message straight to heart. (Even if it was unfortunately mingled with misinferred condemnation)

Cate said...

@ ALA,

So you are saying that other people leaving the church and maintaining the status quo would make you more comfortable? Interesting.

As for the notion that prophets and apostles need to be perfect, well that's just ridiculous. They couldn't be perfect if they tried. None of us can - hence the need for a Savior. What is bothersome is that the idolatry of leadership persists and very little is done by those in leadership positions to end it. Minor concessions have been made here and there but when the rubber hits the road, we practice an infallibility doctrine that our theology does not support. This practice has created the backlash of bitter disillusion so often encountered among disaffected and former church members.

Of course, the blog post wasn't really about our idolatry of The Brethren, but about the fact that we've created our own comfortable god inside the church. So why don't we discuss how excommunicating voices of dissent is a concrete example of making ourselves and our god just a little more comfortable?

Z. S. E said...

This is a very good post. I do know of some in the younger generation who feel that religion is A la carte and picking and choosing what they want to believe in.

However the tone of that talk was disappointing, and a heavy change even in the last few years. I went from a small, wonderful ward and now in a major city, and find too many of the wards way to self-complacent.

Let alone the failures of the church if you a single member who is over 30. I joined when I was 29 and Most wards find you almost a danger that there is a priesthood holder who has a temple recommend who is never been married.

TM said...

@Anon 12:43

If you want to see how 'Christlike" Rock has become, just look at his Facebook page where he has taken to openly mocking and taunting church leaders. I hope they reserve a special place in hell for this guy.

Friar Tuck said...

@engaged19times:

Funny how you characterize those that want the complaining and backbiting to stop as "brainwashed", while someone like you that is full of hate and anger, and pride is "on the right path" so to speak.

So when I learn to cynical and hateful like you and nobody, then my life will be squared away?

Vocey said...

I don't know how long it has been since I've felt the Spirit like I did reading this post. I've been hunting for something like this in my ward for a year, knocking, asking, and seeking. I feel God has heard my prayer.

nobody ever said...

"So when I learn to cynical and hateful like you and nobody, then my life will be squared away?"

I am not "hateful" at all my brother, I just choose to disagree with what you believe.
You seem easily stirred up, calling your kind sister a "crazy old lady".

Who is "pointing fingers" or "blaming" church leaders for being in human?, simply pointing out where they are in error or have changed or contradict the doctrine and teachings of the churches founding prophet or those of the Lord (As we were instructed by JS to)

It especially concerns me when some of the members invite us to leave,(which according to their beliefs)would see us forfeit our eternal salvation, cutting us off from our family's forever and is equal to inviting us to hell.

VERY Christ like. I am sure those who feel justified in feeling this way are indeed celestial spirits and can look forward to an eternity with the Savior.

"And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” (Luke 9:51-56)

"These people do honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."

Friar Tuck said...

@nobody ever said...:

By all means, point out the errors of the leaders if you must. But you are being dishonest and un-Christlike about it. If a brother is in error (as you suppose), do you condemn him on the internet behind his back, or do you go to him in person,and tell him face to face wherein he is in error?

The only purpose I can see that is served by your backbiting on the web is to galvanize public opinion against church leadership, not to uplift and edify your church brethren.

Cortnee said...

I haven't read every comment yet, so someone might have touched on this (its kind of turned into one long LDS bashing and has moved away from the talk itself), but I just hope that people who read this post will also read the conference address or watch Elder Holland speak it in its entirety, because what I took from it wasn't a feeling that he was telling us to shun anyone who sins or has weakness. He was teaching to forgive sin as Christ did and remind us that it is not good in the sight of Christ to sin, knowing right from wrong.

What I took from it and the part that stood out to me seems to be quite different from Cate's experience. This stood out:

"Jesus clearly understood what many in our modern culture seem to forget: that there is a crucial difference between the commandment to forgive sin (which He had an infinite capacity to do) and the warning against condoning it (which He never did even once)...Live the gospel faithfully even if others around you don't live it at all. Defend your beliefs with courtesy and compassion, but defend them."

I was grateful for his uplifting words that remind us that even though the world tries to make sinning an "okay and natural" thing, we can still live our faith and be confident doing so. That was what I feel he meant with his strong words: that the world is trying to make sin okay and we can't fall prey to that, and make sharing you beliefs (missionary work) an out-of-place, weird thing to do. He was telling each individual to better themselves, to not be afraid to live your faith in the scorn of others, and to help others to overcome sin because Christ wants to forgive them if they ask for it. I'm sorry if this made people feel guilty, but I read nothing but numerous quotes of what Christ's love is: "If you love me, keep my commandments."

All quotes are from Elder Hollands same talk. I hope all those who read this article will take the time to also read the actual talk if they haven't done so already!

LDS Jewish Dude said...

I was just reading Thich Nhat Hahn this afternoon. It applies to me, but I will share: If you live in awareness, you can see miracles all around you.

On a personal level, I have been somewhat derelict in being aware.

Elder Eyring uses the term "loving kindness". I don't know if he reads Thich Nhat Hahn's works or not, but loving kindness appears in "Being Peace" quite often. (I would imagine it is an often used Buddhist term.) Elder Eyring is using a term, borrowed or not, that should be on the front of all of our thoughts. My conundrum is how to practice loving kindness, and Christ like love, yet not share that spiritual or philisophical nature with others that live a life that is different from mine?

The Church, as a spiritual organization, cannot allow a free for all. There has to be boundries. But, can those boundries be kept within the realm of Christ-like love? Or loving kindness?

Minerals Liberia said...

If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of yourself, if you want to eliminate the suffering in the world, then eliminate all that is dark and negative within yourself. Truly, the greatest gift you have to give is that of your own self-transformation.

Utah Transplant said...

Frederick said..."I have been actively participating in other denominations lately and realize that they really do serve the poor and needy in our community. It is a joy to worship along side people who reach out to the poor among us. It is a joy to worship along side people who are not convinced that they are God's chosen people and have something that no other church in the world has... I only wish I could find something positive to say about the LDS church as of late. Nothing comes to mind right now.
June 8, 2014 at 8:02 PM

I have found, living many different places and interacting with many different religious groups, that it entirely depends on the religious denominations. I am glad you have found good ones. But I once had a non-LDS roomnate that belonged to different sect of Christianity. She was telling me some of the things her church does for their community. I told her that sounded wonderful, I would have loved to help out. I was very matter of factly told that oh there is no way we would have let you participate, because you aren't really a Christian, and we only allow Christians to help out. I could have been Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, and they would have let me join in. But Mormon? No way. And of course any attempt to explain that I was in fact a Christian fell on deaf ears.

I have rarely had this occur; most people of other religions are lovely. I did not grow up in the Utah culture, so there are many things about it that I still find odd. But acting like other religions are better in every way than Mormons when it comes to service does a huge disservice to those Mormons who are a credit to the name.

My mother, for example. Her nonmember neighbor and friend had a son die of a drug overdose, and while her church helped with the day of the funeral but that was it. My mom arranged for people in the neighborhood to help bring her food before and after the funeral because the lady had no energy to cook for herself and spent countless hours with her, caring for her and helping her through her grief. No proselytizing, my mom is not big on that, just love. It might not be moving mountains in the overall community, but it helped that one person.

My LDS grandma too, does service. One example of many: she knits soft bandages for lepers in third world countries, has done so for years and years, then quietly ships them off to those who need it. I would posit that a lot of service IS going on in the community by, gasp, Mormons, we just don't ever hear about it. But yes there is always more we can and should do, but from the grassroots up if we feel we are not seeing it come down in edicts from the top.

Overall I liked Cate's essay, but there are some broad generalizations in it I disagree with as well. But a very lovely and well constructed piece, thanks for sharing.

Friar Tuck said...

@Minerals Liberia:

Great post!

There seem to be plenty of people that think that if they could just eliminate a few key people in the church, everything would be just fine. Why does everyone want to be his brothers keeper? As if the Lord doesn't know what is happening in the church and has left us peons to find radical solutions.

This reminds me of the French Revolution. Get out the guillotines! It is the vapid aristocracy that is keeping the commoners down. And Rock Waterman is Robespierre.

nobody ever said...

I do agree that this "church" as an organization has the right to decide what is taught within it's walls.

I would never stand in front of the members and try to substitute my personal beliefs and opinion for that of the "church's",It would be a futile exercise.

It is my belief that they are not at all embarrassed by their recent decision. This current wave of very publicized measures has a secondary purpose. It is meant to send a message to the entire membership. It is a warning of the "eternal consequences" meant to instill a fear, to the rest of the flock. They are making an example of them.

Surely they are willing to loose a few very public individuals on the fringe (along with their followers) which they may have eventually lost anyway. I think they see it as a Win-win situation.

Especially when they (Rock) speak up about abuses of tithing!
But since when did the internet and personal Blogs become the domain of the "church", since when do they have domain over what books I read, Who I "friend" on the internet, what my thoughts and opinions I express outside of the institution are?..

Since when did we suspend our own thinking and surrender our minds to others to decide for us what is right and true?.. I will decide for myself whom I wish to associate with, what I wish read, and think. I do not recognize anyone's authority to exercise any degree of unrighteous dominion over me.

Even God does not try to control what I think, he only invites me to follow him.

The first eternal law is free agency. You can not bring people to Christ by exerting control. Only by displaying his way will those who are his sheep, be drawn to the voice of their shepherd. Any attempt to manipulate the choices, or attempt to exert their will upon someone else, to any degree by threat, fear or intimidation will speak with a loud voice to those that can hear it. These are the tools of man used to control, and they cause the Spirit to recoil.


If you don't see anything wrong with a "church" spying on your internet activity and using personal emails and private conversations that take place outside of their property, so that they can then call you into a hearing where you are not allowed to have any witnesses or to defend yourself in anyway, makes a mockery of the freedom we are supposed to have in this world.

These are the same freedoms we were to have guaranteed to us through our constitution. I guess God doesn't believe in free speech?.. I guess all truly is well in "Zion", Go back to sleep but don't forget to send in that tithe check, we have more malls to build, you know the Lord's kingdom never stops growing!

Minerals Liberia said...

But despite his penchant for making news on other issues, Pope Francis’s take on profligacy and inequality may define his reign.

While condemning rapacious global businessmen who have done the world’s economy wrong, he is doing the same thing among the clergy. First, he accepted the resignation of Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst — the Bishop of Bling — who plowed an astonishing $43 million into his posh pad in Limburg, Germany. Then he replaced the scandal-ridden Vatican Bank’s supervisory body with fresh faces. And now, the clash between what Francis describes as “a poor church for the poor” and church extravagance has shifted to a controversial cardinal named Tarcisio Bertone.

The drama, like that which consumed the Bishop of Bling, involves accommodations.

This is where the pope lives: inside a one-bedroom suite in the Casa Santa Marta. This is where Bertone will live: inside an “opulent” apartment between five and 10 times the size of Francis’s home. (Early reports alleged Bertone would move into a 2,300 square-foot flat, but he later denied those claims, saying it was a modest 1,150-square foot flat.)

Bertone’s bastion will overlook the center of Rome, surrounded by a broad terrace that will allow him to survey the Eternal City and the mountains beyond. The cardinal conceded that his perspective digs, which will combine two apartments, are indeed spacious — but necessary. Three nuns, who will do housework, will reside with him. According to the Guardian, he said it was “duly converted (at my own expense) and was made available for my temporary use and, after me, someone else will use it.”

The pope wasn’t biting. The Vatican did not dispute reports that Francis was “furious” when he saw pics of Bertone’s bastion in the European news media, which described it as a “penthouse.”

The timing couldn’t have been worse for Bertone, once the Vatican secretary of state and considered the highest Vatican official. Some even speculated he, not Francis, would be pope. Now allegations have emerged that he mishandled $20 million in Vatican bank accounts.

“We are talking here about suspicious behavior,” Rene Bruelhart of the Vatican’s Financial Information Authority said in a news conference. “We are not talking about penal investigations.”

This “is something being studied,” the pope said in response before dismissing some of the Vatican Bank staff. “Maybe it’s the truth, but at this moment it’s not definitive.”

Bertone has denied the allegations. His house, however, is still on as far as anyone knows, despite another big hint from the pope this week:

“You cannot understand the gospel without poverty,” Francis said in an interview with a Spanish paper. “I believe that Jesus wants bishops to be servants and not princes.”

caveat: and I thought the LDS Church has problems....*snickers*

Friar Tuck said...

@nobody ever said:

"But since when did the internet and personal Blogs become the domain of the "church", since when do they have domain over what books I read, Who I "friend" on the internet, what my thoughts and opinions I express outside of the institution are?"

Uh, I don't know. I guess you want the right to slip into the forest in the middle of the night and worship Satan without the church interfering. It is off church property, after all.

"Since when did we suspend our own thinking and surrender our minds to others to decide for us what is right and true?.. I will decide for myself whom I wish to associate with, what I wish read, and think. I do not recognize anyone's authority to exercise any degree of unrighteous dominion over me."

You can think, read, and associate to your hearts content. No one is stopping you. After all, isn't that what you are doing now?

"These are the same freedoms we were to have guaranteed to us through our constitution. I guess God doesn't believe in free speech?.. I guess all truly is well in "Zion", Go back to sleep but don't forget to send in that tithe check, we have more malls to build, you know the Lord's kingdom never stops growing!"

You have your free speech, no one has taken that from you, you are using it now. The church has a right to defend it's doctrine. If you use your free speech to interfere with the doctrine of the church they have a right to discipline you.

LDSDPer said...

@LDS Jewish Dude,

Yes, I appreciate your honesty. And I always appreciate reading things from people who have learned to look beyond their own culture. It's a painful thing to do, requires a lot of introspection.

I recently have been somewhat challenged to learn that my culture/heritage is not what I thought it was, and the change to what it really is has caused me to have some major paradigm shifts.

I knew my family had an interesting heritage, but when I found out more specifically about it I was . . .

required to consider things on a different level.

It has been a time of spiritual growth.

Ha! I think perhaps maybe the only thing I am not is Jewish.

Not sure how that happened; my husband definitely has Jewish ancestry--

but not my family.

:)

I don't know what the answer is. I think that many Bhuddists and other religionists, though it has been expressed that they don't believe directly in God (I happen to know that in reality many of them do; they aren't quite sure what He is, but they definitely believe in a superior power, but then that is just the people I met on my mission; they do believe in a benevolent force that rules the universe and does a good job of it, though things may be hard in the interim.)

Sorry about the long paragraph.

I didn't find that associating with them hurt me, but then I tend to think that defending religious beliefs or faith (which is such a vague concept; I generally tend to go to Alma to define it; that might be the most correct)--

backfires.

James Brian Marshall said...

@ engaged19times


Me? Brainwashed?

Hah! What drivel accusation is this?!!

I am by far more radical that nearly everyone here on this blog! Just because I've not said all that's on my mind, does not make me brainwashed!

Wisdom is in keeping a closed mouth.
Wisdom is keeping charitable thoughts toward those who are less fortunate in their judgements. It's hard to do I know. It's a struggle for me is what I'm saying.

I'm more radical than Rock even! An RLDS who's brainwashed? Hah!

I laugh!

But actually there are RLDS whom are brainwashed... Just like LDS.

Just like you.

Because if we're all honest with ourselves, we've all been brainwashed!
That is what repent and come unto Christ means. We have to forsake our brainwashing.

Why don't you study Section 124 of your D&C and discover which Restoration branch of the Church get's rejected by Jesus Christ at His return....

I know who, but do you? What would it behoove me to open my mouth about that? It would show I'm not brainwashed, but on the other hand it my suggest I have it in for the unfortunate schmucks.

I don't want to come across that way... I'm not a total jerk.


In my last post to you, I was trying to get a deeper truth to you in my comments.

WE know we in apostasy when we badmouth each other. Read James 1:5, " the Lord God who giveth liberally and upbraideth not".

If there is a question as to weather something is wrong, it already is.


That's what I was trying to get across.

And we all see God everyday. But for some reason because an angel isn't standing before us with drawn sword, or Jesus in all His glory isn't there, we reject what God does let us see.





LDSDPer said...

@Minerals,

Why would you laugh at the Catholics?

Yes, they obviously have all sorts of "issues", and they also obviously have become seriously immersed in Babylon/Mammon, etc.--

The Catholic church was, I believe, one of the first corporations in the world.

But why laugh?

I don't laugh at other religions.

I haven't been laughing at any of the leaders who may or may not be involved in the things that are currently exploding in the church--

or at the people with whom they are having 'concerns'.

Most of the people *on here* who laugh at other religions and assume that everyone who visits Rock's blog is obsessed with condemning 'leaders' (such a vague term again)--

do appear to be collectivists.

It was collectivism that enslaved Eastern Europe in 1918. Collectivism has supported so many outrageous wars.

Why keep it going?

I am not laughing at the LDS Church right now.

I think that mature religionists (Jews are a very good example) have learned to laugh at their religion, but I won't laugh at human beings for their mistakes and I haven't on here.

So, stop grouping *everyone* together, please.

And, it doesn't make a Mormon more righteous to laugh at--

Baptists, Bhuddists, Catholics, Calvary Chapel, Evangelists, Episcopalians, etc., etc., Catholics of any type--

I know some incredibly good Catholics who do a much better job of 'keeping the commandments' than most LDS I know, including myself.

Stop thinking, please--that everyone who visits Rock's blog does it out of bitterness. Some of us have been through some horrific things and come here to comfort people.

I will never encourage anyone to leave the church (I have not left; I just got my TR renewed), but I will absolutely not ridicule anyone who finds him or herself outside the very vague accept 'norm' of the religious institution--

not this one, not any other one--

And if someone close to me chooses to leave I give them my love and stay in touch, and when I say stay in touch, I mean it.

This, Rock's blog, has been a place where people struggling with faith have decided to continue to try having it--

where people who are openly bleeding can come and weep and have others weep with them, when wards won't do it--

There are people who discuss talks--

it seems to me that Cate will never be allowed to forget that she discussed a talk.

How many times have people in SS classes wrangled over the disputes between apostles in the New Testament (especially when one of them was Paul)--

and that is all right--

talks should be open to discussion--

and--




LDSDPer said...

@Cortnee,

I did read Elder Holland's talk; I didn't listen to it, because I was ill and the story about the mashed potatoes made me have to leave the room--

I neither got out of it what Cate did nor what you have gotten out of it.

But please look at the New Testament scriptures he used and the stories from the New Testament and read them carefully out of the New Testament--

None of those are also found in the Book of Mormon (the most correct book), but there is more, and I mentioned it above when I summarized my observations of his talk.

Is it now illegal to discuss conference talks, unless a person simply says, "wonderful talk; wonderful talk; need more like that"--

is that what it has come to?

That *we* can't say what we think when we hear someone speak?

Then--

37andholding said...

God bless you nobody!
My thoughts exactly!
And to anyone who has the arguement about what the corporation of the president has to say about its 'doctrine', I totally agree!!! They have the power to kick out whom ever they want! It just doesn't correlate with the teachings of Jesus Christ. I think that's all many commenters are expressing. It isn't righteous. It's legal. But it doesn't make it right.
There are those like you FTuck that seem to think we question their power to do that. We don't. We just realize, and want to help open the eyes of those who choose to believe that it's what Jesus would do.

Janelle R. said...

When I first read this, I just thought it to be some angry emotional diarrhea using the same phrases of dissent and criticism and not so subtle church bashing with the requisite opening claiming to be a a good temple attending Mormon, and a closing showing an increased profession of love and support. Ugh. This stuff is so formulaic and predictable it is nauseating. Seriously, it's not original material.

While I recognized the regular criticism that follows the theme of a specific agenda, what really got my goat was the criticism about church service being incestuous.

If you had ever served in a calling that helped to distribute the welfare program of the church, you would not say those things. The callings associated with these services are very demanding, but very rewarding in that you know that you are doing the things The Lord would do if he were present. Depending upon your bishop, members and non-members are provided for in the church.

That is may a problem with you or your local ward, but it is not the the norm. Our ward is a more urban ward and very involved with community issues that involve non-members. I even set up non-profit collaborations that were funded by fast offerings. Nobody told me to do it, I was prompted as part of my calling, and the bishop jumped all over it.

Our meetinghouse served as a Red Cross shelter for a month. There was a portable shower trailer in our parking lot. We are constantly involved in service projects for the community and for LDS Philanthropies. We also have some serious needs with our members that we take care of.

In Salt Lake City, I volunteered with a homeless outreach van. The LDS church was the biggest contributor to the homeless relief effort in the area. There was food given directly and to other shelters, work programs, clothing, blankets, ESL programs, motel vouchers, transportations tokens, cash, sanitary and toiletry kits, etc. Not to mention the time that the church put into direct efforts. LDS humanitarian services and even BYU is very active around the world with all sorts of campaigns.

Maybe it's just a lack of creativity on your part. Why don't you do something to change the culture of service in your ward and stake instead of making blanket statements of false facts about the general membership of the church.

Or perhaps you can think outside of your little, angry box and go volunteer with the churches and organizations you applaud so much in this post and do a little constructive bridge building.

Be a doer, not a complainer.

engaged19times said...

James, Ur RLDS? Now that is something. I sometimes wonder why the blogger Rock hasnt become RLDS. Does ur church have the same macabre temple ceremony??

nobody will read 570 comments said...

Well, that settles it for all of us, the church must be "true" after all. Where were you 500 comments ago?.. Thanks Janelle!

Thinking said...

Just gonna leave this here for a second (Pay particular attention to the last sentence):

In 1969 First Counselor in the First Presidency, Hugh B. Brown spoke this at BYU: "You young people live in an age when freedom of the mind is suppressed over much of the world. We must preserve it in the Church and in America and resist all efforts of earnest men to suppress it, for when it is suppressed, we might lose the liberties vouchsafed in the Constitution of the United States.
Preserve, then, the freedom of your mind in education and in religion, and be unafraid to express your thoughts and to insist upon your right to examine every proposition. We are not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts. One may memorize much without learning anything. In this age of speed there seems to be little time for meditation.
Dissatisfaction with what is around us is not a bad thing if it prompts us to seek betterment. …"

LDSDPer said...

@Janelle R--

I suspect Rock has his hands full at the moment,

but I want to let you know that I don't appreciate the 'potty' talk--

LDSDPer said...

@Thinking--

Hugh B. Brown was the 'real deal'.

LDSDPer said...

@James,

I got onto your blog and tried to read it, and I'm afraid you go over my head.

First of all, I think it's just really cool that you are RLDS, and I hope you don't think that you will be a 'token' RLDS on here or anything like that; I just think it's really cool--

I'm not very rigid about all those lines that people use to divide people--

especially the 'original' church and the debacle that happened after Joseph Smith was murdered.

Even when I was a small child pictures of Brigham Young used to make me shudder, and (I didn't grow up in in Utah) when I went to Salt Lake I thought it was the most 'gray' place I had ever seen. Everything was gray.

My ancestors decided not to live polygamy after 1860, and I think some of them may have listened to Joseph Smith III when he came to Utah--

many left Utah after that, but they remained LDS as they knew it minus the polygamy--

AND . . . they emphasized, even back then, the Book of Mormon.

I have heard though that the RLDS have the same problem the LDS have, in general, always in general, because there are always exceptions.

The Book of Mormon has been played down in favor of the Bible.

It's not just because Brigham Young preferred the bible that I prefer (and use much, much more) the Book of Mormon; it's because my ancestors (grandmother born in 1880s) warned me that the Book of Mormon was going to be almost obliterated.

While others were troubled over other things, that talk that Cate mentioned in the LDS general conference by Jeffrey Holland bothered me, because he focused mostly on the New Testament.

Seems to happen a lot.

I understand the injunction/commandment not to judge.

But what do *you* do when someone directly hurts you? I mean, it takes time for the human organism, including the spirit, to process things and work it out and forgive.

Do you believe that if one person hurts another, it should not even be mentione?

Because in the Book of Mormon, obviously the 'poor among them' told someone, or the prophets would not have been deeply concerned about the treatment they received and called those who were persecuting the poor and not feeding them . . .

to repentance.

I get the idea that you think or believe that we should ignore anything negative that happens to anyone--

but why do we comfort people if they don't need it (only for death) or bear their burdens or mourn with them (all Mosiah)--

if nobody ever gets hurt, or if hurts are not allowed to be expressed.

I am confused about this, but maybe I am literal-minded.

If you can't tell someone, somewhere, "that person hurt me", then--

now I would never dream of telling anyone in my ward if I had been hurt by a leader or such--

but I at least have to tell certain family members--

and if I see that someone else has dealt with the same thing, I feel that it might be bearing their burdens or comforting them to say, "that happened to me, too"--

they have no idea about whom I am speaking--

after all.

But I feel that there are people on here who would deny others the holy spirit to help them discern.

I never told any primary teachers or anyone in a ward that seeing a picture of Brigham Young made me shudder (all right; I thought he was 'creepy')--


when I say that on here am I guilty of criticism?

If so, goodness--

well, just goodness--

I daresay I will have nothing to do with the man, ever.

I am, thankfully, not descended from him, but I do know a few people who are.

Unknown said...

Screw TONE....I want to walk in the middle of temple square with this paper in hand, and a burning indignation in my spirit, and read it loudly with spit flying from my mouth. But, I walked away from the corporation a year ago and said I didn't care about it anymore. But, it's true, you can leave the church but you can't leave it alone. I think part of me has been waiting to read these exact words. Thank you!

Gary Hunt said...

Janelle,

A few scriptures came to mind when I read your post.

Matthew 6:3

3 Nephi 13:2-3

Just some food for thought.



andrew said...

heartsell...wow.
I thought engaged19times was kidding! holy moses. just when I thought I couldn't be more disappointed with the Church(TM). this might be the final nail in the coffin for me

Gary Hunt said...

A number of years ago someone told me of an alternate interpretation of the parable of the Wheat and the Tares. We usually look at it as the wheat and tares being people. Here's an alternative way to look at things.

1. Wheat is considered food for man. The Lord told His apostles, "feed my sheep." Wheat = true gospel priciples.

2. The tares are what is called darnel which is a weed which looks like wheat until it heads. It is toxic and can cause sickness and even death if consumed. If people are fed false ideas and priciples (false doctrines) this can cause spiritual sickness and death.

Just some food for thought.

LDSDPer said...

@Gary,

WOW . . . powerful idea about wheat and tares--

*must think about it*

As for alms, yes, it is very hard when *people* express general concern for where funds collected from members go as per church coffers (etc.)--

and many 'on here' dare not say, when some come on and accuse those with concerns of not 'doing anything'--

"but *we* are doing things"--

if *we* speak up, we are condemning ourselves; if we remain silent, *we* appear only to be careless critics.

Sometimes alms can't be 'hidden', no matter how hard *we* try, though--

and sometimes *our* "alms" cause a tremendous amount of angst to those who discover them and resent that we ever reminded them, must by our existence and the existence of the alms, that there were alms that could be done--

that is a paradox. A complication and a dilemma indeed.

:(

But *you* do what Father in Heaven asks and whatever comes of it, does tend to come.

*heavy sigh*

Minerals Liberia said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gary Hunt said...

Edward Bernays is considered the father of propoganda. The quote below is from his book "Propoganda" which was published in 1928. It is considered by many to be the "Bible" of the public relations industry.

CHAPTER I
ORGANIZING CHAOS

THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.
They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.

Public relation firms people are hired by institutions such as politicians, government, religious organizations, corporations etc... to basically mold the minds of the public or members of these organizations as seen fit by these few rulers of these institutions. In other words they are using mind control techniques.

Here's the link to entire book

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

Some more food for thought.

Friar Tuck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Friar Tuck said...

So Rock is consumed with being a media rock star for the time being. He doesn't have time for the peons anymore, he is in tha national spotlight.

Anyway, on Facebook Rock linked to an article that showed that zero people had been excommunicated by Christ during his mortal ministry. Interesting, because Christ also ordained zero women to the priesthood. His 12 disciples were all men as well. Not sure what point Rock is trying to make. I'm sure that if I was in the presence of Christ I would have no need to rebel against his gospel. And Christ never kept membership records or wrote anything down in his own hand, so what are we to deduce from Rock's assertions?

PNW_DPer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PNW_DPer said...

Regarding "Heartsell", my very TBM convert son-in-law will sometimes play "inspiring" vignettes of General Authority talks (from conference, firesides, whatever), that will actually seem inspiring to me, that is, until that stupid background music starts up and ruins the inspirational spirit for me, like the Holy Ghost was witnessing of the truth of a message, but that "Heartsell" music drowns out the spirit.

Are you watching and listening, COB spies? The true word of God does not need your "Heartsell" music and emotional manipulation, it just ruins it. If a General Authority is really speaking truth by the Holy Ghost, and yes I truly believe that often they do, the Holy Ghost does NOT need you butting in with your "Heartsell".

(Reposting because the comment had way too much white space at the end.)

LDSDPer said...

@Minerals,

I am not 'your friend'; you are not mine.

You have said nothing friendly. You have not been 'friendly'.

People don't call their friends "idiots".


LDSDPer said...

@Gary,

thanks for that reminder about Bernays.


PNW_DPer, that is interesting about heartsell. Engaged first mentioned it. I'm going to look into it. It's not a good feeling to be manipulated.

LDSDPer said...

oh, my, heartsell is real.

And people defend it. How terrifying!!!

Bonneville is very open about it.

My, my--

something new every day--

Gary Hunt said...

Dear Friar Tuck,

Do you know what ad hominem and strawman (not Wizard of Oz) means in relation to argumentation?

Actually there are some religious historians who believe Christ ordained women because there are some early christain church writing which indicate so. I'm not saying that it is true. Just open to the possibility.

Your comments continue to show that you are stuck in congnitive dissonance and willful ignorance.

Friar Tuck said...

@Gary Hunt:

Gary, there are many here that have used poor argumentative tactics, ad hominems, stawmen, and all manner of logical fallacies. Rock himself has used these techniques. Yet I seem to be the only one that you take it upon yourself to correct. What is your agenda?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Cortnee wrote, "I read nothing but numerous quotes of what Christ's love is: "If you love me, keep my commandments."

I'm afraid you have misunderstood what God's love is, if you're going by that quote. What I'm getting from you, Cortnee, is that you define God's love as determined by whether or not we keep His commandments. But what "Christ's Love is" has nothing to do with any of that.

The quote you provided was not Jesus defining His love for us;, it was Jesus telling those who claimed to love him what they ought to be doing to back up their words.

Christ has made it abundantly clear that he loves us regardless of whether we are properly following his commandments. His love is unconditional; all he is saying is that if we are prone to claim we love HIM, a good place to start showing we mean it is by keeping his commandments.

And what is His most important commandment? That we love each other IN THE SAME MANNER as he has loved us.

In other words, unconditionally.

That is what Christ's love is; it is without conditions. That it is difficult for any of us to love others without judgment or condition merely shows what an uphill climb it is to become like Christ. But we can keep at it bit by bit.

Anonymous said...

I think you and everyone that wants to modernize this church should ban together and form your own church. I don't understand why you would put so much energy into this. You are standing up for what you think is right so go for it. Put your energy into your own church. Maybe you can call it the church of the later day rameumptom.

FTB

Alan Rock Waterman said...

FTB,
I'm already a member of this church, and see no need to start or join another. Neither have I, nor Cate, nor anyone here that I know of expressed a desire to "modernize" the church we belong to. We wish only for our church to adhere to the revelations of God.

If you are dissatisfied that members of the Lord's church should wish to see both members and leaders obey the voice of the Master rather than elevating their own policies and opinions to the status of doctrines, perhaps you would be happier starting your own church and leaving the church of Christ to those who would follow Him.

Anonymous said...

Hold on Mr. Waterman.I have a strong conviction of my belief in God. I do not understand why you belong to such an organization. There is quite a number of people like Care, yourself, John Dehlin, Kate Kelly and countless others that are speaking out and are publicizing your strong disagreement and disgust with the church. Since you know in your heart that you are not going to fundamentally change this church, why waste your time spreading your hatred for the way that chruch is when you proclaim your love of Christ. I am trying to understand. Why not start your own church? Worship the way you want to. Spread your message for a true purpose. Because what is the purpose of this. You have the free agency to create your own church. Maybe John and Kate can lead it.

FTB

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 708   Newer› Newest»