LDS Freedom Forum

Alright coach, give us 35! :ymsmug:

Coach, I hope to meet you in person some day.

TannerG wrote:Coach, I hope to meet you in person some day.

For endless months, Coach was the only person on this forum that I actually wanted to meet in person.

A few others have been added to that list in recent months.

coachmarc wrote:I really like what Bruce Lee said once. "Be like water."
That is all.

Loved your message. Please share more often. Thanks!

whatever wrote:
Unless he is delivering the message authentically. If DS has had the experiences he says he has, his "rough around the edges" (whatever that means) is not the impediment to the Lord that it seems to be to men or women.
...

^^^^^This!

Many of the things we currently think to be righteous and polite behavior are a product of 19th century upper class England. The Victorian period. For some reason we have superimposed them upon American Christianity generally, and the LDS church specifically. But previous generations would have found it laughable. Thankfully, heaven wasn't similarly infected.

BalaamDoctrineLDS wrote:There you go again, putting words in my mouth... thanks for your clarifying thoughts however...

So where do you stand ? Please help us understand your perspective. What is holiness to the Lord in your view? Is it important? How do you feel holiness? Virtue?

Here is the problem as I see it. You place your cultural norms on everyone else and choose to be offended when everyone else does not conform to it. Holiness has nothing to do with the usage of body part names. It is all about loving your neighbor as your self. Body parts names and functions are not either holy or unholy, It is the culture that determines what is considered polite or impolite and that can vary widely. God has stated that taking his name in vain is what he finds offensive. How can you live in a Zion society when you won't tolerate culture norms that differ from you own? You accuse your neighbor of giving offense, when to him, there is no offense given. A Zion ready person is not looking to be offended by cultural differences. A Zion ready person does not make a man an offender for a word.

On the other hand, you did not apologize for telling what you now know to be false, that is saying Snuffer called Pres. Monson an A hole. I assume you think it is no big deal to start a rumor like that, which causes harm to a person's reputation.

Holiness is loving your neighbor, forgiving his trespasses and returning kindness for injury. Holiness is serving the poor and lame. Healing the sick, bearing one another's' burdens.

On another thread, you said you were offended by the female members of your ward wearing clothes that were too tight. Their form showing. That is not unholy. Nakedness is not unholy. The problem lies with you, if you have lustful thoughts because of it. God created the female body to be a thing of beauty. That in of it self is a holy creation of God. Once again, it' s the cultural norms that decide which amount of nakedness is appropriate. There are cultures were women wear little to no clothes and it is not considered a matter of promiscuity. Our society is far more promiscuous than those societies. The native tribe people of New Guinea do not wear clothes other than a piece of a gourd covering the man's penis. The women wear no clothes but they maintain family values and honor marital contracts.

Other tropical people wear nothing as well. They would take no offense in baring the body and lust is not incited by the sight of a female body part because they are seen all the time.

On the other end of the scale many Muslims find that women showing any part of their body offense. They would most likely see your wife's public appearance an offense, if she showed any part of her hair, face, arms, torso or legs. A full body burka is the cultural norm. Can we have Zion if we have to conform to the Muslim's cultural norm? Will the women be happy living like that?

I sure you think your standard should be enforced and everyone else is wrong. Zion won't work like that. Everyone's culture norm will be accepted and no offense taken because of it. What will not be accepted is hurting others, by word or deed.

Anybody else read the link he posted? Funny stuff. lol.

BalaamDoctrineLDS wrote:How then does one come to know? The simple answer is the spirit. That is what I'm not understanding, the spirit can't confuse so I'm either deceived or DS is, or you are, or anyone who is following him is... or we all are... I feel completely more holy reading John Pontious than I ever do with Snuffer. Snuffer's writings and teachings feel to appeal to my brain, where, Pontious appeals to my heart... anyone else feel the same?

I have to say I feel absolutely the same about Brother John. I never once felt put off spiritually with Pontius, but I had from the get-go with DS.

BalaamDoctrineLDS wrote:

whatever wrote:
The "rough", "profane", "naughty" message speaks to me and my family. Piety annoys me. Pretended piety grieves my spirit. It's not our personalities that make us "one," it's our unity on points of doctrine. No offense intended, but certainly will be taken, if people like DS and Ajax aren't worthy of Zion because they can drop a swear word or two with flair, I want no part of that spirit grieving piety.

So to make sure I understand you correctly, am I correct in stating, you believe that holiness includes "rough", "profane", "naughty" messages that speak to you and your family

Hell yes

Balaam

It's all about honesty

Roughness is honesty

Nothing pretended

We are stuck at the bottom of a deep dark well

It sucks

Most people have accepted it and try to make the best of it

Indeed it is a blessing

But the problem is that many start to settle in

They want to stay forever

They find shiny rocks and trade them amongst themselves

They make themselves comfortable

Its like what might happen if The Goonies never got out

And never wanted to

They feel respectable next to their collection of rubies

But some of us want to escape

We want to see the sun

We want more than can be had at the bottom of this shithole well

We want to rise up

We realize that we are surrounded by rough profane worthless naughty things

But there is more above!

So while we are here, we call it like we see it

We are honest

We know there are people peddling lies

Not everyone is like us

Some like the dirt down here

Some believe the lies

This well is special, it is their home

We love them too

And can relate

And judge not

But seriously

Let me be honest

I feel like I'm up to my eyeballs

In horsesh!t

DPeterson wrote:Anybody else read the link he posted? Funny stuff. lol.

Are you talking about this link?

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=35034" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sift that one!

BagleyDarwin wrote:

DPeterson wrote:Anybody else read the link he posted? Funny stuff. lol.

Are you talking about this link?

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=35034" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sift that one!

LOL, no, but that's a good one.

I just meant the one Balaam linked to an "article", or whatever you wanna call it, that he wrote.

I just think it's funny that as he's trying to impose HIS standard of virtue on everybody else, anybody else that explains how they see it differently (the whole conversation being related to Denver supposedly using inappropriate language of course) is just so wrong. And as we defend Denver's use of such language, indirectly, as we counter Balaam's idea of virtue then we're all followers of Denver and attacking anybody that doesn't like him. (Though I know you probably agree with him brother Bagley)

Balaam's standard of virtue actually may not be the way the Lord see's it...what a concept. Maybe the Lord doesn't care that his messengers run around naked, lay around naked and drunk, swear and mock others...seeing as they did it. Maybe it's purely about the message after all, and whether or not someone is perceived as "rough" is irrelevant. It's all perspective anyway. It doesn't bother some of us, and other's it does, that doesn't make it right or wrong. Noah can get drunk and naked, Jesus and John can swear, Jules can have a tattoo, Ajax can drink a MBD and Joseph can preach a sermon on the WoW and then ride down the street smoking a cigar. No big deal to God it seems. But remember, Disney is evil.

Jules has a tattoo?

Original_Intent wrote:Jules has a tattoo?

:)) Yup. A sea turtle with her boys initials on either side. She posted a pic a while back...the only reason why I remember.

Yes, the Lord really does let lots of things slide. He lets the rain fall on the just and the wicked. He does this for a reason, so that we can reveal to ourselves who and what we really are. If God blasted bad behavior every time it happened and poured out money on us every time we did well, then there would be no chance for any of us to let our true colors come through. The true measure of a man takes place when that man knows that nobody is looking. What a man chooses to do when he isn't play-acting reveals the kind of man he really is.

There are indeed times, though, when the Lord really does care and He really does blast them because they should have known better:

Remember Lot's Wife.

Look at Numbers 12.

Try 1 Kings 18, or 1 Kings 13.

Study Joseph Smith and the 116 pages.

If some of us end up as a smoking cinder or a pillar of salt at the Second Coming, then we know that we should have done better than we did. The job of the prophets is to try to make us better than them. We really don't have any right to use their weaknesses as our justification for committing sin.

Some of us are looking for any way we can to make ourselves exceptions to the rule. We are looking for ways to justify our sins. We say to ourselves, I'm going to do this horrible thing because some prophet in the past did this horrible thing. I know, because I was that way for decades. Hell did indeed embrace me with open arms, but it took a decade or two to get there.

DPeterson wrote:

BagleyDarwin wrote:

DPeterson wrote:Anybody else read the link he posted? Funny stuff. lol.

Are you talking about this link?

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=35034" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sift that one!

LOL, no, but that's a good one.

I just meant the one Balaam linked to an "article", or whatever you wanna call it, that he wrote.

I just think it's funny that as he's trying to impose HIS standard of virtue on everybody else, anybody else that explains how they see it differently (the whole conversation being related to Denver supposedly using inappropriate language of course) is just so wrong. And as we defend Denver's use of such language, indirectly, as we counter Balaam's idea of virtue then we're all followers of Denver and attacking anybody that doesn't like him. (Though I know you probably agree with him brother Bagley)

Balaam's standard of virtue actually may not be the way the Lord see's it...what a concept. Maybe the Lord doesn't care that his messengers run around naked, lay around naked and drunk, swear and mock others...seeing as they did it. Maybe it's purely about the message after all, and whether or not someone is perceived as "rough" is irrelevant. It's all perspective anyway. It doesn't bother some of us, and other's it does, that doesn't make it right or wrong. Noah can get drunk and naked, Jesus and John can swear, Jules can have a tattoo, Ajax can drink a MBD and Joseph can preach a sermon on the WoW and then ride down the street smoking a cigar. No big deal to God it seems. But remember, Disney is evil.

I actually think it is a sifting mechanism. Those who are so easily offended can not be part of Zion. Tolerance will be needed for a people to live in peace and harmony.

BagleyDarwin wrote:Yes, the Lord really does let lots of things slide. He lets the rain fall on the just and the wicked. He does this for a reason, so that we can reveal to ourselves who and what we really are. If God blasted bad behavior every time it happened and poured out money on us every time we did well, then there would be no chance for any of us to let our true colors come through. The true measure of a man takes place when that man knows that nobody is looking. What a man chooses to do when he isn't play-acting reveals the kind of man he really is.

There are indeed times, though, when the Lord really does care and He really does blast them because they should have known better:

Remember Lot's Wife.

Look at Numbers 12.

Try 1 Kings 18, or 1 Kings 13.

Study Joseph Smith and the 116 pages.

If some of us end up as a smoking cinder or a pillar of salt at the Second Coming, then we know that we should have done better than we did. The job of the prophets is to try to make us better than them. We really don't have any right to use their weaknesses as our justification for committing sin.

Some of us are looking for any way we can to make ourselves exceptions to the rule. We are looking for ways to justify our sins. We say to ourselves, I'm going to do this horrible thing because some prophet in the past did this horrible thing. I know, because I was that way for decades. Hell did indeed embrace me with open arms, but it took a decade or two to get there.

But that's the question right, are they really sins? Or is it false tradition and commandments of men. Do we assume through our cultural paradigm that those were sins and weaknesses that men of God had, or are they actually not a problem? Show me in the scriptures where alcohol is a sin? Show me where God disapproved of Himself telling Isaiah to go naked for three years? How about swearing? Did Jesus sin then? What about tattoo's outside of the OT? No other scripture speaks to it. So again, are they sins, or merely tradition?

DPeterson wrote:
But that's the question right, are they really sins? Or is it false tradition and commandments of men. Do we assume through our cultural paradigm that those were sins and weaknesses that men of God had, or are they actually not a problem? Show me in the scriptures where alcohol is a sin? Show me where God disapproved of Himself telling Isaiah to go naked for three years? How about swearing? Did Jesus sin then? What about tattoo's outside of the OT? No other scripture speaks to it. So again, are they sins, or merely tradition?

As some of you might have guessed, I have pondered this a lot and have studied it for months.

I personally found this article helpful:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/10/sins ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

--

What I personally came to conclude is that there are a couple of useful definitions for sin. Here are a couple of them.

If you know that God Himself has commanded you to do something, yet you deliberately choose to disobey, then it is a sin and will be counted against you.

Anything that prevents you from going to the Celestial Kingdom is a sin.

Sin is the deliberate and willful rejection of God, His Church, His Prophets, and His Commandments.

Sin is a rejection of the Holy Ghost's promptings and the rejection of Revelations from God; thus, sin is a rejection of God's Words.

I find this quote from Joseph Smith helpful:

Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.256:

God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted - by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.

BagleyDarwin wrote:

DPeterson wrote:
But that's the question right, are they really sins? Or is it false tradition and commandments of men. Do we assume through our cultural paradigm that those were sins and weaknesses that men of God had, or are they actually not a problem? Show me in the scriptures where alcohol is a sin? Show me where God disapproved of Himself telling Isaiah to go naked for three years? How about swearing? Did Jesus sin then? What about tattoo's outside of the OT? No other scripture speaks to it. So again, are they sins, or merely tradition?

As some of you might have guessed, I have pondered this a lot and have studied it for months.

I personally found this article helpful:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/10/sins ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

--

What I personally came to conclude is that there are a couple of useful definitions for sin. Here are a couple of them.

If you know that God Himself has commanded you to do something, yet you deliberately choose to disobey, then it is a sin and will be counted against you.

Anything that prevents you from going to the Celestial Kingdom is a sin.

Sin is the deliberate and willful rejection of God, His Church, His Prophets, and His Commandments.

Sin is a rejection of the Holy Ghost's promptings and the rejection of Revelations from God; thus, sin is a rejection of God's Words.

I find this quote from Joseph Smith helpful:

Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.256:

God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted - by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.

I can agree with most of that. Especially the JS quote. ;)

Though I would amend one of the above statements:

Sin is the deliberate and willful rejection of God, His Church, His Prophets, and His Commandments.

IMO, should read.

Sin is the deliberate and willful rejection of God, and His commandments.

We are not required to follow any man. The question then, which is what I meant by asking "What is a sin?", is what are His commandments? Where are those things I mentioned before prohibited? You can't find a prohibition on them in the scriptures, only men of God participating in them.

Yet, I would amend your amendment as you will have already guessed by saying that we are indeed commanded by God to follow any man who is speaking while moved upon by the Holy Ghost to speak.


D&C 1:37-38:
37 Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.
38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.


D&C 68: 2-6:
2 And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth--
3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.
5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.
6 Wherefore, be of good cheer, and do not fear, for I the Lord am with you, and will stand by you; and ye shall bear record of me, even Jesus Christ, that I am the Son of the living God, that I was, that I am, and that I am to come.

For all of us here in mortality, the Words of God and the Commandments of God first come to us through a man, as that man is moved upon by the Holy Ghost to speak Scripture to us.

There is no way for you to divorce the man from the Holy Ghost's message, unless you have already entered into God's presence there to remain. 99.999% of us on this planet have not reached that point, so we still have to get the Word of God from ordinary men who speak Scripture while being moved upon by the Holy Ghost to speak Scripture.

Philo Dibble in Church History loved to sit and watch Joseph Smith while Joseph was receiving revelations. Philo could actually see whenever Joseph was lit up by the Holy Ghost and thus speaking scripture, or when there was no light in Joseph and thus Joseph was speaking only as a man. Philo was a seer. He could actually see when the Holy Ghost was within Joseph Smith and speaking through Joseph Smith's mouth.

I have had an ordinary Latter-day Saint tell me not too long ago that he has experienced the very same thing and could tell when the Holy was speaking through a person or when the person was only speaking as a man.

I happen to agree with so much of what you are all are saying, I don't have a problem with tattoos, other than I don't like needles . The more I study I think maybe drinking beer isn't sin either, I think we as "mormons" are cruel to those who smoke (we sure know how to humiliate a lot of good people who may have an unhealthy habit). I am rethinking everything I ever knew...that is why I came on this forum.

"Perverse" humor I feel clutters MY mind, that is why I don't like it.

Running around naked is not for me either because let's face it we are in a carnal society.

Christ did tell us that by their fruits we shall know them...and there are so many translation issues in the bible we should be wary of focusing on those examples. Maybe the Book of Mormon would be a better place to look for what true messengers look like, just a thought.

We are to love and be kind to each other. God tests us very often in the way that irks us the most. He gives us a trial in which we would be JUSTIFIED to act in a less than Christlike manner, but we grow measures upon measures if we can take a trial and pass through it in a Christlike fashion, say our peace with love, patience, and showing extra love if we feel to reprove with sharpness.

Fools mock, we loose when we mock, even if we feel justified in that which we mock.

I have a brother who is close to passing, he has read/watched every near death experience he can find and he has been completely blown away because those who have actually claimed to have talked with Jesus NEVER mention that he asked them what church they belong to, when they were shown their life in review THE highlights were when they were kind, not when they were "right", or important, not what church they supported...maybe it really is our ability to be kind that will shine in the end.

As for Disney, I would think more of you would be pro conspiracy and would be more open minded about the evil agendas going on there. There is a ton of evidence that they are accessing the subconscious mind of children and using it to push their agendas. Hence it is evil IMHO. ;)

Best of luck in your search for happiness, Christ, the heavenly gift, and joy with your loved ones.

EDIT: Without a knowledge of the back-text or the context, this particular post served no useful or edifying purpose. Therefore, I repent.

Kitkat wrote:I happen to agree with so much of what you are all are saying, I don't have a problem with tattoos, other than I don't like needles . The more I study I think maybe drinking beer isn't sin either, I think we as "mormons" are cruel to those who smoke (we sure know how to humiliate a lot of good people who may have an unhealthy habit). I am rethinking everything I ever knew...that is why I came on this forum.

"Perverse" humor I feel clutters MY mind, that is why I don't like it.

Running around naked is not for me either because let's face it we are in a carnal society.

Christ did tell us that by their fruits we shall know them...and there are so many translation issues in the bible we should be wary of focusing on those examples. Maybe the Book of Mormon would be a better place to look for what true messengers look like, just a thought.

We are to love and be kind to each other. God tests us very often in the way that irks us the most. He gives us a trial in which we would be JUSTIFIED to act in a less than Christlike manner, but we grow measures upon measures if we can take a trial and pass through it in a Christlike fashion, say our peace with love, patience, and showing extra love if we feel to reprove with sharpness.

Fools mock, we loose when we mock, even if we feel justified in that which we mock.

I have a brother who is close to passing, he has read/watched every near death experience he can find and he has been completely blown away because those who have actually claimed to have talked with Jesus NEVER mention that he asked them what church they belong to, when they were shown their life in review THE highlights were when they were kind, not when they were "right", or important, not what church they supported...maybe it really is our ability to be kind that will shine in the end.

As for Disney, I would think more of you would be pro conspiracy and would be more open minded about the evil agendas going on there. There is a ton of evidence that they are accessing the subconscious mind of children and using it to push their agendas. Hence it is evil IMHO. ;)

Best of luck in your search for happiness, Christ, the heavenly gift, and joy with your loved ones.

Thanks Kitkat. And I really don't mean to pick on your husband. You both seem like great people doing the best you can to follow wherever the Lord leads you, which, of course, is the most important thing.

I just think too many of us think we know what virtue is, and what does and does not offend the Lord, when we really have no idea. If it affects you negatively, no matter what it is, you should stay away from it. The opposite is also true, if it doesn't affect your ability to follow God and be lead by the Holy Ghost then it is also not necessarily inappropriate. I just feel Jared is overly concerned with the behavior of the messenger and not the message. I don't need to defend Denver, but his "perverse sense of humor" and "inappropriate" language doesn't influence whether the message he shares leads me closer to Christ, which it has. The only reason why I give one ounce of attention to Denver is because God specifically told me to listen to what he's saying, otherwise I wouldn't care. I've found God's voice in his message, so what he's like as a man doesn't matter to me at all.

I just got this feeling from Jared that only his interpretation of virtue and holiness is the one that matters, and the rest of us are wrong. Then he went off about being attacked by "Snufferites" when Denver's character was only incidental to the discussion about holiness and virtue. Then he said something about not wanting to go where Denver is leading people...which I'm not sure where that is supposed to be other than a message to come unto Christ. Anyway...

Again, I'm sure you are both great people, but his approach threw me off. Denver isn't the issue. His "language" isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not he preaches come to Christ, which he does. He just doesn't want followers and uses "inappropriate language" to throw people off and not look to him.

Original_Intent wrote:Jules has a tattoo?

No, this is utterly untrue! I do NOT have A tattoo. I have tattoos.... :ymblushing:

Jules wrote:

Original_Intent wrote:Jules has a tattoo?

No, this is utterly untrue! I do NOT have A tattoo. I have tattoos.... :ymblushing:

Haha, my bad...

Why the blushing? I've been thinking about getting one.

coachmarc wrote:I really like what Bruce Lee said once. "Be like water."

I can have a great conversation talking about the book of Isaiah with bob. I can learn about 911 from Dr. Jones and talk shop when it comes to solar cookers and I won't get uptight because he uses Dr. in his username. I can laugh with ajax who will toss a few mild barley drinks back because the Lord, from His own lips, allows them per word of wisdom (I prefer a tall, cold lemonade, myself, though). I will talk up a storm with Robert Sinclair about covering the earth with covenants and deeds that cannot be broken. I will love Darwin Bagley like my own brother and discuss callings and elections. I'll have lunch with brlennox and find out what kind of sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing clothing he is. I would love to sit down with Gad one day and talk more about the Second Comforter.

I would love to get to know BalaamDoctrineLDS better and talk about Enoch and his mission to build up Zion. The only person I have ever gotten to sit down with and talk to one on one was BrentL. I love this man. We chatted for hours about the first book of Nephi. It's easy to dismiss one another because we don't really get to know each other. I know I missed a lot of people. I've gotten to know Jules in person, a sweet, strong willed mom who loves her sons and the Lord. And there's a very cheerful sen6b who couldn't figure out what to use for her call sign under her username so I suggested "Because I'm Happy." I could go on and on.

I love everybody here. The problem is, many of you haven't figured that out yet. ;)