A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

[gruden2.0]

I just want consistency for what is taught in the Church itself.

And that's where correlation steps in. And it never stops there. And it trains and conditions people how/where/what to receive for doctrine.

The mysteries have nothing to do with what is taught in Church, and don't belong in Church in the first place.

Joseph Smith said he loved to wrestle new things from the scriptures for the church members to hear. In the Book of Mormon, the righteous Nephites did everything in the Church by the Holy Ghost. Well, the Holy Ghost brings pure intelligence and revelation. Revelation reveals the mysteries. Therefore, mysteries absolutely DO belong in church. If we can't handle it, that says a lot about us.

The mysteries are a mishmash of partially revealed revelations mixed in with speculation that one has to wade through with critical thought, and one's own spiritual faculties, not unlike what is contained in the apocrypha. One cannot just accept any man's doctrines as being truth, including those of first and second phase Mormonism coming from the pulpit.

So, what you're saying is, when people encounter non-correlated information, they have to THINK. They have to STRETCH spiritually. Imagine that.

[Helaman2000]

Joseph Smith said he loved to wrestle new things from the scriptures for the church members to hear. In the Book of Mormon, the righteous Nephites did everything in the Church by the Holy Ghost. Well, the Holy Ghost brings pure intelligence and revelation. Revelation reveals the mysteries. Therefore, mysteries absolutely DO belong in church. If we can't handle it, that says a lot about us..

That's where we disagree because in my opinion, the mysteries are in the realm of personal revelation, not institutional revelation. The Holy Ghost teaches us personally. This is where I believe earlier-phase Mormonism had it wrong and where fourth phase Mormonism has it right. The personal and the institutional are now de-coupled the way they ought to be. Correlation is the correct thing to have on an institutional basis where the mysteries are left to the people on a personal level where the Holy Ghost can personally teach. To me, the spirit of the "leave the mysteries alone" thing really means to not preach personal speculations in Church, not that you cannot have them or engage in them. Because most of the time, that is precisely what people's understanding of the mysteries are. They are ongoing search for truth and revelation on a personal basis, where speculation fills in the holes, until the whole picture is revealed. Seldom is the entire picture revealed, and that is why the mysteries are mostly always a mix of personal speculation and personal revelation. And typically, it is difficult for people to discern the difference between partial revelations and full revelations on a subject. This is why I think it is important to always assume there is more to know on any subject, and to always be willing to search for more on any subject. And just because we feel good about something doesn't guarantee that we understand all of the nuances, or even all the foundational pieces of something. That is why, the books that I have control over that I have written, some of them have already gone through four revisions. Because as I gain even more understanding over time, they will be continually revised. And each revision will represent a step in my gaining of understanding.

So, what you're saying is, when people encounter non-correlated information, they have to THINK. They have to STRETCH spiritually. Imagine that.

Good for you. Precisely.

[Sariel]

I guess my only concern with what you say is if you mean that you are possibly part of groups that are in the Church that are secret combinations, as it were, within the Church, where secret stuff goes on. That kind of stuff is the same as if it is out of the Church, and is even worse in some ways.

I am not trying to be tricky. I am in no group. I'm not in Utah or the west; there are not many LDS around here.

[Sariel]

Do you have a reference for each of these brethren on this subject? Thanks.

I have the pdf of the Discourses of Brigham Young compiled by Elder Widstoe. I have done word searches and couldn't find what I was looking for. I will have to read the whole thing again to find it. When I do I'll try to remember to post it here. I've been wanting to find it again anyway, because it is was interesting to me to think that satan might inspire someone to do good to get them in a position to destroy more effectively.

[Matthew.B]

Curious post. I can't think of time when there were a duly authorized and righteous first presidency and quorum of the twelve apostles when this scenario would apply. So I can only assume you both think that the current church leadership are not divinely inspired nor approved?

Wanted to comment on this, although the conversation has moved on.

Samuel the Lamanite and John the Baptist are two prime examples- the organizations started by the preceding prophets were still intact (albeit to different degrees). In the case of Samuel, who belonged to a church among the Lamanites, there was at least one righteous officiator- Nephi- along with what would be the remnants of the Mosaic Law structure, as practiced among the Nephites.

In the case of John, the organization was intact enought that Christ recognized Caiaphas as the rightful heir to Moses' seat.

In the case of Samuel, at least, the leaders of the church were still divinely appointed and approved- yet Samuel's words were met with rejection by many of the people.

Whether the current Church structure is corrupt (which I don't believe it is) or perfectly intact, there is still precedent for the "wild man" to appear at the Lord's pleasure with a message intended for anyone- Jew or Gentile, LDS or non-LDS, etc.

[HeirofNumenor]

That's where we disagree because in my opinion, the mysteries are in the realm of personal revelation, not institutional revelation. The Holy Ghost teaches us personally. This is where I believe earlier-phase Mormonism had it wrong and where fourth phase Mormonism has it right. The personal and the institutional are now de-coupled the way they ought to be. Correlation is the correct thing to have on an institutional basis where the mysteries are left to the people on a personal level where the Holy Ghost can personally teach. To me, the spirit of the "leave the mysteries alone" thing really means to not preach personal speculations in Church, not that you cannot have them or engage in them. Because most of the time, that is precisely what people's understanding of the mysteries are. They are ongoing search for truth and revelation on a personal basis, where speculation fills in the holes, until the whole picture is revealed. Seldom is the entire picture revealed, and that is why the mysteries are mostly always a mix of personal speculation and personal revelation. And typically, it is difficult for people to discern the difference between partial revelations and full revelations on a subject. This is why I think it is important to always assume there is more to know on any subject, and to always be willing to search for more on any subject. And just because we feel good about something doesn't guarantee that we understand all of the nuances, or even all the foundational pieces of something. That is why, the books that I have control over that I have written, some of them have already gone through four revisions. Because as I gain even more understanding over time, they will be continually revised. And each revision will represent a step in my gaining of understanding.

This was great - thanks!

[Rand]

Curious post. I can't think of time when there were a duly authorized and righteous first presidency and quorum of the twelve apostles when this scenario would apply. So I can only assume you both think that the current church leadership are not divinely inspired nor approved?

Wanted to comment on this, although the conversation has moved on.

Samuel the Lamanite and John the Baptist are two prime examples- the organizations started by the preceding prophets were still intact (albeit to different degrees). In the case of Samuel, who belonged to a church among the Lamanites, there was at least one righteous officiator- Nephi- along with what would be the remnants of the Mosaic Law structure, as practiced among the Nephites.

In the case of John, the organization was intact enought that Christ recognized Caiaphas as the rightful heir to Moses' seat.

In the case of Samuel, at least, the leaders of the church were still divinely appointed and approved- yet Samuel's words were met with rejection by many of the people.

Whether the current Church structure is corrupt (which I don't believe it is) or perfectly intact, there is still precedent for the "wild man" to appear at the Lord's pleasure with a message intended for anyone- Jew or Gentile, LDS or non-LDS, etc.

MB, I appreciate those efforts, but they are just that efforts. John the Baptist was living in a time of apostasy on every level, and was the legal holder of the priesthood at that time. Samuel, for all we know he was a member of the first presidency, there is nothing to indicate he was not a part of the church hierarchy. So although it is possible he fits in this category, that fact is it would be highly unusual and thus highly unlikely given it is the only time that something like that may have happened.

[HeirofNumenor]

As an aside...what type of Church organization existed among the Israelites in Old Testament times? I only recall studying about the Temple, and for most of the history of BOTH Northern and Southern kingdoms, the people were corrupt and immoral/idolatrous (as frequently so were the Temple priests & Levites) - culminating in human sacrifice...

I know the Book of Mormon refers to synagogues (before Christ was born), but to my understanding, the Synagogue existed a bit in Christ's mortal ministry, but it didn't become a major factor of worship until after the Roman Dispersions of the Jews.

I ask these things because some have mentioned OT prophets like Elijah coming out of nowhere, but if there was no organization/hierarchy established to minister to the people (outside of the Temple) then the various mentions of the prophets/school of the prophets type instances would be more likely - and thus a previously unknown Prophet would be brought forth to call the people & the King to repentance.

[Gad]

It is easy with hindsight to look back and say "Oh these guys in the past were all in apostasy. They cast out and excommunicated the true prophets. We clearly would never do that." That is what every generation does. That attitude led the Israelites to reject their God.

[Matthew.B]

MB, I appreciate those efforts, but they are just that efforts. John the Baptist was living in a time of apostasy on every level, and was the legal holder of the priesthood at that time.

The structure was intact enough for Christ to honor Caiaphas as the rightful High Priest. I'm pretty sure Christ would have recognized if the formal structure had changed. The inside was rotten but the outside was still there- thus there was not an apostasy present on "every level" (although I do understand, and agree with, your point here, that it was a time of widespread apostasy and darkness).

Samuel, for all we know he was a member of the first presidency, there is nothing to indicate he was not a part of the church hierarchy. So although it is possible he fits in this category, that fact is it would be highly unusual and thus highly unlikely given it is the only time that something like that may have happened.

It is not the "only time" that something like that happened- I only gave two examples. The scriptures are replete with examples of holy men coming from the "rank and file" of the Church (not the high presidency) to call the people to repentance, prophecy, etc. (Alma the Elder, sons of Mosiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, etc.) Christ Himself had no earthly position of power- he wasn't even of the right lineage to officiate as a priest!! Many more notable examples are of men who are called to an apostleship or high priesthood after their calling people to repentance and declaring the Lord's words of warning (such as Nephi 3, Paul, etc.).

Enoch himself, the original "wild man", had no position we are aware of- only a calling from the Lord and the right parentage (not to mention the priesthood). Joseph Smith held no earthly position or power until it was conferred upon him by the members of the Church. The list goes on- Moses, Abraham, Noah, etc.

The original point is that it is very easy for the "chosen children" of Israel (those born into the covenant when the members of Israel have become well-established and living relatively easily) to grow lax, lazy, and even revile against the very men who they should be listening to. The Lord has often used calls to repentance both from the "top" (High Priesthood) and from the "bottom" (minor prophets with no earthly credentials) to get His people to awake from their stupor of sin.

As for who the true "Wild men" sent from God are- we can all disagree on that. But the idea that the Lord couldn't/wouldn't/hasn't sent an "outsider" or someone of low authority to preach repentance is not based on scripture.

[Helaman2000]

As for who the true "Wild men" sent from God are- we can all disagree on that. But the idea that the Lord couldn't/wouldn't/hasn't sent an "outsider" or someone of low authority to preach repentance is not based on scripture.

The point is not that he cannot. The point is, why should he, when we are doing fine? Here we go again, and somebody will come back and tell me we are NOT fine. There is a big difference between blatant breaking of the ten commandments and people who fall into small errors. We have a bunch of General Authorities that are human. When general authorities are caught in blatant, gross sin, or blatant open apostasy, nobody stands for it. Elder Lee, as an example, who was dealt with swiftly. And there was Elder What's his name in the 20th century who secretly had a second wife who was dealt with swiftly. Simply put, those who say that the General Authorities are in blatant sin have no foundation for that claim. And as far as I know, the only reason you should ever raise your hand in not sustaining someone is if you know of an actual problem along these lines, not along ideological lines where the brethren aren't doing what someone personally feels they should be doing, or that the revelations they are getting are not the type of revelations people thing they should be getting, or whatever. This Church is led by very righteous men, for the most part.

From the fundamentalist factions, they seem believe that somehow the brethren are binding them down, or that if the Church is in some kind of condemnation only because it isn't going the way they think it should, and they think it affects them in some way. As far as I can tell, they claim to have the ability to get their own calling and election, and their own revelations by way of the Spirit and/or heavenly beings. So why should they care what the Church does? Why don't they just go do what makes them feel good, and let the hierarchy deal with the Church? Personal doctrines and personal growth has absolutely nothing to do with the hierarchy, or correlation. Absolutely nothing. Who cares what is taught in Sunday school? I mean seriously? How does it bind you down when you have your own personal beliefs? It doesn't. Is it because one cannot spout off one's own personal beliefs in Sunday School? That, I submit, is WRONG and out of order to begin with. Who cares what the brethren spend the Church's money on as far as money that has been made from investments, apart from tithing funds? Oh, says one, they ought to be spending it on helping the poor of the other countries and not on a mall. Well, why don't the fault-finders go use their own personal funds to give money to the Christian Children's fund rather than worrying what the Church does? If people like that want money to go to those countries, why don't they become the temporal salvation of those people? It's not their calling to meddle in what the Church does. They are constantly on the lookout for ways that they can charge in this way or that that the Church in general is condemned and needs reprimanding from above, and hey, they are here to offer their services to do it. How cool is that? How convenient.

Besides, some people take it upon themselves to warn other people of their own volition, for example, of the consequences of finding fault with the Lord's anointed, or whatever else. Or friends that warn their friends against walking off a spiritual cliff, or friends that go to help their inactive friends become active again. Those types, I submit to you, are actually the ones that are being sent from the "bottom," that the Holy Ghost works through, not the ones that are trying to organize and become everyone else's spiritual mentors, and trying to figure out how to defame the brethren to build themselves up. A certain book out there, as an example, offers an alternate spiritual path, because of the percieved condemnation.

In other words, it doesn't matter if the Church is actually under condemnation in the grand scheme, because it is SELF CORRECTIVE in that regard, and the people who are sent as a warning voice from below to their fellows of their own volition are not here to steady the ark. There is simply no circumstance where the ark is in need of steadying from below, and those with the keys have built in methods to ensure that their fellow General Authorities maintain a very high level of ethics and morality.

[Original_Intent]

See Helaman, this is where we differ. You hear the church under condemnation, and think it means the leadership. I hear the church is under condemnation, and I think that it refers to the general membership. I do not believe the leadership are under condemnation, nor do I think it is due to poor leadership that the members are, as a whole, not where they should be.

Actually, i was pretty surprised to hear you say you did not believe the church was under sondemnation, but then I understood when I see that you mean this in defense of the leadership...it is just odd because I have never felt like the church being under condemnation was anything to do with the leaders.

[HeirofNumenor]

@Helaman2000

:ymapplause: :ymhug:

[Helaman2000]

See Helaman, this is where we differ. You hear the church under condemnation, and think it means the leadership. I hear the church is under condemnation, and I think that it refers to the general membership. I do not believe the leadership are under condemnation, nor do I think it is due to poor leadership that the members are, as a whole, not where they should be.

Actually, i was pretty surprised to hear you say you did not believe the church was under sondemnation, but then I understood when I see that you mean this in defense of the leadership...it is just odd because I have never felt like the church being under condemnation was anything to do with the leaders.

Oh no, actually I'm fully aware and fully clear that some are referring to the Church in general being under condemnation, ergo, the brethren are not with it and are off base, because they do not sense it spiritually, and have not corrected it. And it is always because these individuals have some IDEOLOGICAL issue with what is going on, not because people in the church on a massive scale are guilty of general apostasy or general breaking of commandments or covenants.

Ed Goble

[HeirofNumenor]

See Helaman, this is where we differ. You hear the church under condemnation, and think it means the leadership. I hear the church is under condemnation, and I think that it refers to the general membership. I do not believe the leadership are under condemnation, nor do I think it is due to poor leadership that the members are, as a whole, not where they should be.

Yet OI...unless one is complaining about the people voting for Romney/not awake per Ether 8....the majority of complaints/slanted comments about the Church which provoke contention on this forum come down to in some way suggesting that the leadership is fallen/lost the heavenly gift/lost gift of revelation/covering up history/mis-usings funds, etc - and these complaints are frequently paired with statements from Joseph and Brigham about not trusting blindly, and assume that the members are not already getting spiritual verification of apostles' words.... This provides them an out so if they choose to test the words by the Spirit for themselves, and they do NOT feel the Spirit confirm the truth of the prophet's words - then they believe the Prophet was wrong, and their own interpretation is right. They become a law/Church unto themselves, rather than considering that they didn't get a confirmation by the Spirit due to other influences such as pride, stuck in their own paradigm/worldview, etc.

This can happen to otherwise good active LDS as well - for example: how many USA LDS do not get moved by the words of prophets & apostles concerning the US Constitution/freedom being in jeopardy? Lundbaek will tell you all about that. Those that were opposed to Pres. Benson (Harry Reid is a prime example) cannot hear, see or feel the Spirit in such matters because their hearts are already set in opposition to those principles Pres Benson espoused.

We see that in the refusal to see any merit in the City Creek Mall, or the insistence that we are breaking the 1/3 tithing rule from Deuteronomy (covering up), and would rather ALL efforts and monies be spent to end hunger/poverty instead of sending out proselytizing missionaries - some even said to build everyone on earth a house before we build temples.

Unfortunately, many of these folks also seem to look eagerly to an outsider like Samuel the Lamanite or Abinadi, and await the One Mighty and Strong because they view the LDS Church as an institution/leadership is fallen...never considering it is the members themselves (and of course these critics are NEVER at fault themselves)....nor considering that if the people are the problem, and outsider calling them to repentance won't do the trick....scripturally, that mass change happens only through cleansing & destruction - ie. wars, disease, natural disasters ...

[Helaman2000]

Yet OI...unless one is complaining about the people voting for Romney/not awake per Ether 8....the majority of complaints/slanted comments about the Church which provoke contention on this forum come down to in some way suggesting that the leadership is fallen/lost the heavenly gift/lost gift of revelation/covering up history/mis-usings funds, etc - and these complaints are frequently paired with statements from Joseph and Brigham about not trusting blindly, and assume that the members are not already getting spiritual verification of apostles' words.... This provides them an out so if they choose to test the words by the Spirit for themselves, and they do NOT feel the Spirit confirm the truth of the prophet's words - then they believe the Prophet was wrong, and their own interpretation is right. They become a law/Church unto themselves, rather than considering that they didn't get a confirmation by the Spirit due to other influences such as pride, stuck in their own paradigm/worldview, etc.

This can happen to otherwise good active LDS as well - for example: how many USA LDS do not get moved by the words of prophets & apostles concerning the US Constitution/freedom being in jeopardy? Lundbaek will tell you all about that. Those that were opposed to Pres. Benson (Harry Reid is a prime example) cannot hear, see or feel the Spirit in such matters because their hearts are already set in opposition to those principles Pres Benson espoused.

We see that in the refusal to see any merit in the City Creek Mall, or the insistence that we are breaking the 1/3 tithing rule from Deuteronomy (covering up), and would rather ALL efforts and monies be spent to end hunger/poverty instead of sending out proselytizing missionaries - some even said to build everyone on earth a house before we build temples.

Unfortunately, many of these folks also seem to look eagerly to an outsider like Samuel the Lamanite or Abinadi, and await the One Mighty and Strong because they view the LDS Church as an institution/leadership is fallen...never considering it is the members themselves (and of course these critics are NEVER at fault themselves)....nor considering that if the people are the problem, and outsider calling them to repentance won't do the trick....scripturally, that mass change happens only through cleansing & destruction - ie. wars, disease, natural disasters ...

Precisely. You see, fifth-phase Mormonism, (adding on yet another phase to Snuffer's phase system, spoken of incidentally by David Whitmer, called the "second great work"), when it comes, with the translation of more records, the return of the ten tribes, and the ushering in of the Millenium, and great and obvious miraculous changes, will not happen with some Abinidi figure. It will happen with a successor to THOMAS S. MONSON.

[Helaman2000]

Oh, and I should add. Many of the political persuasion of this forum think that those in the Church that are not "awake" as they are are under condemnation, because they aren't constitutionalists. I submit that being a constitutionalist is not a fundamental of the gospel, nor is it a fundamental of the gospel message, because it is discovered by those who are PERSONALLY awake, and it involves being part of a political ideology that values the constitution. The Church, as an institution, has no political ideology, regardless of what President Benson said or anyone else, and people's righteousness or lack thereof does not hinge on political beliefs. While I personally agree with the constitutionalist/patriot/anti-NWO ideology as my own personal political belief, my fellow Church members who do not believe that way are not under condemnation. Their PERSONAL interpretation of Moroni's injunction to be awake might be different, and no Sunday School lesson or talk from the pulpit in recent years has come out to correct them.

[Matthew.B]

As for who the true "Wild men" sent from God are- we can all disagree on that. But the idea that the Lord couldn't/wouldn't/hasn't sent an "outsider" or someone of low authority to preach repentance is not based on scripture.

The point is not that he cannot. The point is, why should he, when we are doing fine?

My friend, if you think we are doing fine, you need to apply yourself to understanding what a people who are doing "fine" are like. Maybe you live in a perfect ward where everyone has everything in common, where there are no envyings or strife between members, where there are no social cliques and everyone is taken care of spiritually. Even if you did live in a perfect ward, I can attest that a vast majority (read: almost all) wards are not nearly to that level yet.

We are not doing fine- if we were "fine", at the very least the condemnation set in place in 1832 would be lifted- but it hasn't happened yet.

The tares and the wheat are still growing together. Why couldn't the Lord send prophets crying repentance to a membership who treat the words of the sitting prophets lightly (like laughing when Pres. Monson is seriously reciting the sins of the rising generation)? He has always done so.

[HeirofNumenor]

Why couldn't the Lord send prophets crying repentance to a membership who treat the words of the sitting prophets lightly (like laughing when Pres. Monson is seriously reciting the sins of the rising generation)? He has always done so.

When has this happened? I only witnessed laughing at General Conference when Pres. Monson makes a funny face or wiggles his ears... :p )

[shadow]

Why couldn't the Lord send prophets crying repentance to a membership who treat the words of the sitting prophets lightly (like laughing when Pres. Monson is seriously reciting the sins of the rising generation)? He has always done so.

I get bothered by that, too. It happens almost every GC.

Just off the top of my head, for an example Heir, is Pres. Monson's Priesthood talk last Oct. He was talking about a study he had read that pointed out today's youth (college aged youth), don't know what a moral dilemma is. The priesthood laughed at some of his remarks and I'm not so sure he said them to get a laugh.

[reese]

As for who the true "Wild men" sent from God are- we can all disagree on that. But the idea that the Lord couldn't/wouldn't/hasn't sent an "outsider" or someone of low authority to preach repentance is not based on scripture.

The point is not that he cannot. The point is, why should he, when we are doing fine?

My friend, if you think we are doing fine, you need to apply yourself to understanding what a people who are doing "fine" are like.

If our present form of "Zion" wasn't "prospering" then we might be more acutely aware of our sickness, sores, disease and stench. We use the measuring rod of Babylon and conclude we are among the greatest of people rather than the standard of heaven against which we are loathsome, bitter fruit.

[Original_Intent]

See Helaman, this is where we differ. You hear the church under condemnation, and think it means the leadership. I hear the church is under condemnation, and I think that it refers to the general membership. I do not believe the leadership are under condemnation, nor do I think it is due to poor leadership that the members are, as a whole, not where they should be.

Actually, i was pretty surprised to hear you say you did not believe the church was under sondemnation, but then I understood when I see that you mean this in defense of the leadership...it is just odd because I have never felt like the church being under condemnation was anything to do with the leaders.

Oh no, actually I'm fully aware and fully clear that some are referring to the Church in general being under condemnation, ergo, the brethren are not with it and are off base, because they do not sense it spiritually, and have not corrected it. And it is always because these individuals have some IDEOLOGICAL issue with what is going on, not because people in the church on a massive scale are guilty of general apostasy or general breaking of commandments or covenants.

Ed Goble

No, you clearly are still not reading me.
I for one think the brethren are completely "with it".

[Original_Intent]

See Helaman, this is where we differ. You hear the church under condemnation, and think it means the leadership. I hear the church is under condemnation, and I think that it refers to the general membership. I do not believe the leadership are under condemnation, nor do I think it is due to poor leadership that the members are, as a whole, not where they should be.

Yet OI...unless one is complaining about the people voting for Romney/not awake per Ether 8....the majority of complaints/slanted comments about the Church which provoke contention on this forum come down to in some way suggesting that the leadership is fallen/lost the heavenly gift/lost gift of revelation/covering up history/mis-usings funds, etc - and these complaints are frequently paired with statements from Joseph and Brigham about not trusting blindly, and assume that the members are not already getting spiritual verification of apostles' words.... This provides them an out so if they choose to test the words by the Spirit for themselves, and they do NOT feel the Spirit confirm the truth of the prophet's words - then they believe the Prophet was wrong, and their own interpretation is right. They become a law/Church unto themselves, rather than considering that they didn't get a confirmation by the Spirit due to other influences such as pride, stuck in their own paradigm/worldview, etc.

This can happen to otherwise good active LDS as well - for example: how many USA LDS do not get moved by the words of prophets & apostles concerning the US Constitution/freedom being in jeopardy? Lundbaek will tell you all about that. Those that were opposed to Pres. Benson (Harry Reid is a prime example) cannot hear, see or feel the Spirit in such matters because their hearts are already set in opposition to those principles Pres Benson espoused.

We see that in the refusal to see any merit in the City Creek Mall, or the insistence that we are breaking the 1/3 tithing rule from Deuteronomy (covering up), and would rather ALL efforts and monies be spent to end hunger/poverty instead of sending out proselytizing missionaries - some even said to build everyone on earth a house before we build temples.

Unfortunately, many of these folks also seem to look eagerly to an outsider like Samuel the Lamanite or Abinadi, and await the One Mighty and Strong because they view the LDS Church as an institution/leadership is fallen...never considering it is the members themselves (and of course these critics are NEVER at fault themselves)....nor considering that if the people are the problem, and outsider calling them to repentance won't do the trick....scripturally, that mass change happens only through cleansing & destruction - ie. wars, disease, natural disasters ...

Thanks for reading me loud and clear. It's nice to be understood.

[Helaman2000]

No, you clearly are still not reading me.
I for one think the brethren are completely "with it".

Alrighty then.

[Matthew.B]

Why couldn't the Lord send prophets crying repentance to a membership who treat the words of the sitting prophets lightly (like laughing when Pres. Monson is seriously reciting the sins of the rising generation)? He has always done so.

When has this happened? I only witnessed laughing at General Conference when Pres. Monson makes a funny face or wiggles his ears... :p )

Shadow referenced one example, but I am thinking of a different one, again from last October- it was during (IIRC) Sunday Morning session. Pres. Monson was quoting (again, IIRC) a newspaper journalist who was lamenting over the moral decline over the past few decades. There was a lot of alliteration, rhyming, etc. in the direct quote to the effect that, as Pres. Monson was declaring how the past two generations had slipped into great debauchery and sin, the Saints were laughing gaily at the funny words he was using. He stopped and gave the congregation a "look". At that moment, the spirit told me that Pres. Monson was NOT happy with the LDS people, and neither is the Lord.