LDS Freedom Forum

shadow, are you in an argumentative tone

I mean really lol

I see firend has not returned as he/she said they would not. So since I and ithink and firend all seem to be on the same page, i would like to comment.

hehe there is a huge difference between voluntary and involuntary bondage, so your example of being robbed like the day before you pay your bill is actually funny. I understood what firend was saying, it was in his/her posts many times.

Also, banks are not evil, just because many bankers and much of the system is, has nothing to do with your twisting lol are you really suggesting that those of us that put of money in the bank are promoting others debt. lol really? i mean it is not my problem if the banker is evil, or a loanee wants to put themself in harms way. Do you pump gas, uh oh I guess your promoting NWO. Do you have a job, did your boss lie to someone, uh oh, are you promoting a lie. Seriously its all about context lol I am just saying banking is not ALL corrupt, so I put my money there to promote that part that isn't so there!

lastly, i mean really shadow, do you think you are not in bondage by the bank holding your deed. Seriously, i am trying to get out of debt, it is hell, and firend has some points that really motivate me. So as for you I guess enjoy what you think is not bondage.

cayenne wrote:shadow, are you in an argumentative tone

Not really. Firend accuses the prophets of being wrong and the rest of us for not following Christ if we have debt. I'll call him on it. Firend has debt too, he just can't admit it, or see it. That's OK I suppose, but please don't accuse me of being the bad guy. I'll stand with our prophets any day over Firend. In fact, I was just reading some talks from President Kimball, he said the same thing as Hinckley did, other than an affordable house and a vehicle if necessary, stay out of debt (I paraphrased).

And please, how were the first copies of the BOM paid for????

cayenne wrote: Also, banks are not evil, just because many bankers and much of the system is, has nothing to do with your twisting lol are you really suggesting that those of us that put of money in the bank are promoting others debt. lol really? i mean it is not my problem if the banker is evil, or a loanee wants to put themself in harms way.

Banks would not exist if they could not loan money Loaning money means one party has incurred a debt. Not hard to figure that out is it? And remember, it is you, Firend, and ithink that say all debt is evil, not me 8) . So if you have money in a bank, you are enabling others to get into debt and you are profiting from them. I mean really cayenne, hehe, can you not figure that out?

cayenne wrote:lastly, i mean really shadow, do you think you are not in bondage by the bank holding your deed. Seriously, i am trying to get out of debt, it is hell, and firend has some points that really motivate me. So as for you I guess enjoy what you think is not bondage.

I mean really cayenne, did you not get the point of my earlier post? I am in bondage because the bank holds the deed, I admit it, but I can walk away from it if I choose. Many people are doing that right now. Notice all the foreclosures? ? And don't think that it's just the bank that holds the deed, try not paying the property tax bill 8) We're all in debt. That's my point. Even the holier than thou Firend that can correct prophets, tho he won't admit it, is in debt. And ithink suggested that money is debt. Think about that little nugget..... Can you get out of debt? It's harder than you might think, and it's much more than just not having a mortgage BTW, instead of trying to pay off your mortgage, why not sell your house and rent (but if you rent, then you're in debt to your landlord )?? If it's as evil as you guys make it appear, then just get rid of it! But you won't, you'll keep making those monthly payments, right Cayenne? Oh, don't tell me it's still OK to have debt, so long as you see it as evil. That doesn't work

With all due respect to all points of view presented here,
may I humbly ask y'all a question:

If Jesus Christ were to walk right into the middle of this
discussion right now, what do you think He would do?

(a) Walk right back out?
(b) Sit quietly, listen and say nothing?
(c) Listen to all points of view and then speak His mind?

If your answer is (c), what do you think He would say?

From an official LDS church press release dated May 7, 2007 I quote:

* Not every statement made by a Church leader,past or present, necessarily
constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single
occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is
not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration,
the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of
the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church)
counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official
Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of
scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and
the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the
Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context,
leaving their original meaning distorted.

Here's the link to the original press release.
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom ... n-doctrine

Hope this helps.

ready2prepare wrote:With all due respect to all points of view presented here,
may I humbly ask y'all a question:

If Jesus Christ were to walk right into the middle of this
discussion right now, what do you think He would do?

(a) Walk right back out?
(b) Sit quietly, listen and say nothing?
(c) Listen to all points of view and then speak His mind?

If your answer is (c), what do you think He would say?

From an official LDS church press release dated May 7, 2007 I quote:

* Not every statement made by a Church leader,past or present, necessarily
constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single
occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is
not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration,
the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of
the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church)
counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official
Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of
scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and
the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the
Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context,
leaving their original meaning distorted.

Here's the link to the original press release.
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom ... n-doctrine

Hope this helps.

Thankyou

I think enough has been said. Debt is not wrong, voluntary bondage debt is. There is a huge difference. Everyone is in debt, but to voluntarily put yourself their on top of everything else we can't control is something else. I know i can control my voluntary bondage, and just today i am no longer in bondage debt...yae!!!! I now do not owe anyone more than I have right now. I own my home, that is voluntary, taxes are not if u want to live lol i voluntarily am free today, and that is faith, thx God for telling us to get out of debt bondage

Some people are on different pages i suppose. It happens a lot on here.

With all due respect to all points of view presented here,
may I humbly ask y'all a question:

If Jesus Christ were to walk right into the middle of this
discussion right now, what do you think He would do?

(a) Walk right back out?
(b) Sit quietly, listen and say nothing?
(c) Listen to all points of view and then speak His mind?

If your answer is (c), what do you think He would say?

From an official LDS church press release dated May 7, 2007 I quote:

* Not every statement made by a Church leader,past or present, necessarily
constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single
occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is
not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration,
the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of
the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church)
counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official
Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of
scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and
the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the
Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context,
leaving their original meaning distorted.

Here's the link to the original press release.
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom ... n-doctrine

Hope this helps.

PERFECT! Thank you!

cayenne wrote:

Thankyou

I think enough has been said. Debt is not wrong, voluntary bondage debt is. There is a huge difference. Everyone is in debt, but to voluntarily put yourself their on top of everything else we can't control is something else. I know i can control my voluntary bondage, and just today i am no longer in bondage debt...yae!!!! I now do not owe anyone more than I have right now. I own my home, that is voluntary, taxes are not if u want to live lol i voluntarily am free today, and that is faith, thx God for telling us to get out of debt bondage

Some people are on different pages i suppose. It happens a lot on here.

Wow, congratulations cayenne! I think you have made your point quite well on what is and what is not bondage (by choice) regarding debt. Thanks for your insights.

I'm on the middle ground of this discussion. I hope that means I'm on the straight and narrow path and not on the proverbial fence! The interesting thing about a path (especially a straight and narrow one), is that it's easy to stray from it to either side.

In this debate we've got questioners and non-questioners battling with valid points on both sides, and somewhere those truths harmonize. That's where I'd like to be.

Sometimes people like firend & ithink argue one side so hard that you may get the impression that they are further off they path than they really are. They keep having to reassert their loyalty. However, no matter how close ithink is to the path I have to think he fell off on the questioning side with remarks such as these:

"
....My mother in law, my wife, and others, have had a hard time with this. We all equally agree now that it would have been better if there had been no whitewashing, since it doesn't help anyone's testimony when they find out what really happened, and it calls into question every other "story" I have heard no matter who it comes from and how many times it is repeated because the credibility of those telling the stories has been found to be lacking.

...Don't worry gruden, a former director of your friendly neighborhood Federal Reserve Bank (Mark Willes - Minneapolis) is now running the Babylonian side of the Lord's kingdom. And I'm sure he'll run it the only place there is to run it -- into the ground.
"

ithink, when you have gone sarcastic and biting on these and other occasions, you have produced a negative endorsement for your questioning position. You have occasionally come across as criticising in exactly the way that modern brethren have warned against.

---

I will say that I believe that there are imperfections in some of what the bretheren do and teach. I believe this not because I sit there and keep a tally (based on my perfect judjement) but because to me it's obvious that it would be so when God is working with imperfect men.

Re the BOM:
12 And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you.
....
17 And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

He said there could be imperfections in the BOM itself. To me he must have known it was impossible to have a perfect record through imperfect men but he said: if there are imperfections I don't know what they are specifically.

Of all people he would have known the record intimately. If you are one of those people who put more effort into a antagonistic critique of the words, such that you can find any problems where he could not, you're nuts and the type of person he's warning to be careful.

I think this is true of the words of the bretheren too. Study and prove them by all means! But be careful when you are finding faults. You are not 100% qualified to critique them and you'll lose the spirit if you go too far.

Sometimes you'll be studying in a non-faultfinding way, and you'll come across something that you don't understand, and can't seem to reconcile. Well, you have put in some effort and now it's probably time to put it aside for a while and come back to it after a few years. You'll be pretty reluctant to declare an error.

For me, the issue of most confusion is Adam-God, and I try to apply every questioning and unquestioning principle on it in balance--Still to no resolution. At first blush it appears that either Joseph Fielding or BY were in error. I've tried study and reconciliation, and can't get any further. So I put it aside for now. I don't place a final call on the subject, call Joseph Fielding or BY wrong, declare an understanding of Adam's position or anything. I just admit that I don't have enough light right now so it's time to put the question aside and go unquestioning on the subject for now.

Thats the key to me! When you can't reach a firm reconciliation of statements without fault on anyone's part, you declare a lack of light and PUT THE QUESTION ASIDE! The unquestioners have this down pat.

However, the questioners have it right, that if we study/understand/prove the words then we will grow and be of more use to God and potentially anybody we sustain.

---

I would tell the questioners that those warnings by Joseph etal against unquestioning following are most relevantly applied at the Local level. As you pass through more layers of imperfect men, the best of which are likely to be near the top, you are more likely to see a mistake. An awful bishop called or something like that. I would be quite comfortable challenging my bishop or even stake president on doctrinal battlefields. But as you go up, you're getting cockier.

I think that stewardship is a great indicator on where you should feel comfortable questioning your higher ups. I may question my bishop on a doctrinal understanding but it would be totally inappropriate for me to question his ward callings unless I know something specifically unworthy about one of his choices. He's got a stewardship to give those callings.

Get up to a 70, and you give them more respect over their doctrinal understandings. But where you really begin to feel real spiritual danger in challenging their statements is when they are given in conference. They have at that point been given a commission to teach the whold dang church at once! (think of the responsibility!) They are acting in a capacity to which they have been given a small short stewardship.

Of course, you add weight when it's the prophet, and even more when he says "thus saith the Lord", but even before then you're foolhardy to challenge one of his conference talks.

One area where I'd feel perfectly easy on challenging even an apostle is polygamy. (yall know how I feel about that!) If one came privately and said to me, "live polygamy"--I'd frankly say: "sir, no offense, but I'm going to have to check your authority on that one. I doubt you have enough stewardship to correctly command me to do this. I'm sorry to be so ornery but I need to see the president of the church and hopefully a good number of the 12 at once."

I feel that this type of stewardship check, with freedom to doubt outside that stewardship, is plenty defense against any leader which would lead you to do wrong.

Great post Braingrunt. Thank you.

One thing that can't be argued with is that without a doubt God wants me where I'm at. Oh, and He knows I have a mortgage . We tried selling our house, even had it under contract. All that time my Bishop said we're needed where we're at. He told us our house wouldn't sell, I said, "Ha! it's under contract". He said don't plan on moving, God wants you right where you are. Wouldn't you know it, the sale failed! A few months later we put it back on the market, our silly Bishop told us to not even waste our time, we're needed where we're at. "But Bishop" I chimed, "I want to get rid of my mortgage". He chimed back "You're needed right where you're at" (and honestly, we knew that too).

An even more interesting story is how we got our house... for the 2nd time! Yep, we sold it (against the wish of my dear wife) and ended up buying back a yr later. But that's another 'in Gods hands' story for another day... No doubt whatsoever, God wants me in my house, but don't think I haven't tried to be disobedient. We tried like crazy to move, even managed to get away with it for a year

Sorry guys, but I can't argue with the will of God. I have a mortgage, God knows it, but wants me here anyway (almost against my will ).

You can try and decipher that all you want, but it is what it is. There must be something in the command to stay out of debt that is not being fully understood. An example could be the command to not kill yet Nephi was commanded to kill.... Stick with your stewardship and you'll be OK. I'll stick with mine. Judging can be a precarious thing, especially if all the facts aren't there. I understand the counsel from the prophets, debt on a house can be OK. Other exceptions are given too, maybe not in your life right now, but for others....

armedtotheteeth wrote:

With all due respect to all points of view presented here,
may I humbly ask y'all a question:

If Jesus Christ were to walk right into the middle of this
discussion right now, what do you think He would do?

(a) Walk right back out?
(b) Sit quietly, listen and say nothing?
(c) Listen to all points of view and then speak His mind?

If your answer is (c), what do you think He would say?

From an official LDS church press release dated May 7, 2007 I quote:

* Not every statement made by a Church leader,past or present, necessarily
constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single
occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is
not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration,
the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of
the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church)
counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official
Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of
scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and
the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the
Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context,
leaving their original meaning distorted.

Here's the link to the original press release.
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom ... n-doctrine

Hope this helps.

PERFECT! Thank you!

Note that church publications, conference addresses, and press releases are not in that list. Such things can be good guides, but the volume of content is so huge nobody would be able to stay on top of it.

Cowboy wrote:

Kurt wrote: Wow, you seem to be stating that men called as prophets are perfect and therefore we do not need to receive spiritual confirmation of anything they say. If a prophet should ever make a mistake, it is his alone to bear, please do not attempt to blame Heavenly Father for a man's mistake. If the prophet is acting under the direction of the Father, then he will make no mistakes, and the spirit will confirm it. We have lost a few apostles (i.e. prophet, seers, and revelators) in the early days of the church, I do not blame God for their mistakes and apostacy.

See, this is what I mean. Pure deception. twisting and turning at every point of doctrine.

And I guess Brigham Young was also using pure deception and twisting and turning at every point of doctrine when he said:

Brigham Young wrote:The greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord.

Cowboy wrote:I remember when Pres. Benson was Elder Benson and everyone said...When he gets in as Pres. all hell will break loose as he is a real radical. I think he was an extremist from a political sense although I think he was right. When he was elevated to be our Prophet, he changed immensely. No radical changes from a political standpoint. No calling Democrats the closest things to communist and so on. Our Prophets are called of God to represent him here on Earth. I believe that 110%. So when someone ignorantly says that a Prophet screwed up.....WOW!. He is in essence saying the Lord screwed up. I would not want to have to justify that comment at a later date. It is blatant priestcraft and the work of the Devil to say that because the Prophet said something that you obviously don't understand or agree with he must have been wrong. That is ignoring the 'Thin Ice' sign on the Lake! Wake up and quit trying to lead others astray by criticizing Church Leaders.

Benson knew the members of the Church weren't ready. He tried for years to teach them the truth and the majority wouldn't listen. He said himself that the freedom issue would divide the Church asunder. The people misperceiving that he was "radical" and "extreme" was the issue. His ideals were in complete harmony with the founders of our nation...radical, extreme? The ideology of our nation, democrats, and republicans are the radical and extreme standpoints today. We live in 1984 where we are surrounded by psychological warfare and all other manner of deception. We takeover countries and kill millions of people and our people don't even know it. The reason Benson did not speak out as the prophet is not because he was "God's representative to the Earth." It is because he new the Church was not ready.

Ezra Taft Benson wrote: Maybe the Lord will never set up a specific church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution. Perhaps if he set one up at this time it might split the Church asunder, and perhaps he does not want that to happen yet for not all the wheat and tares are fully ripe.

The Prophet Joseph Smith declared it will be the elders of Israel who will step forward to help save the Constitution, not the Church. And have we elders been warned? Yes, we have. And have we elders been given the guidelines? Yes indeed, we have.

As to what Christ would say in this conversation:

See Luke 12:14

braingrunt wrote:However, no matter how close ithink is to the path I have to think he fell off on the questioning side with remarks such as these:

"
....My mother in law, my wife, and others, have had a hard time with this. We all equally agree now that it would have been better if there had been no whitewashing, since it doesn't help anyone's testimony when they find out what really happened, and it calls into question every other "story" I have heard no matter who it comes from and how many times it is repeated because the credibility of those telling the stories has been found to be lacking.

...Don't worry gruden, a former director of your friendly neighborhood Federal Reserve Bank (Mark Willes - Minneapolis) is now running the Babylonian side of the Lord's kingdom. And I'm sure he'll run it the only place there is to run it -- into the ground.
"

ithink, when you have gone sarcastic and biting on these and other occasions, you have produced a negative endorsement for your questioning position. You have occasionally come across as criticising in exactly the way that modern brethren have warned against.

If that is the way you see it, so be it, but I will note that in this sort of discussion the content is never addressed, only the "way in which it is handled", or "the tone you are using", and so on.

I will explain the comments you quoted from me so you might understand my more clearly. I am not being an idiot when I talk like that, I am just giving you the straight goods.

A member of our bishopric missed a sunday because of something I said in SSchool. It shook him up big time, because it flew in the face of what he has been taught at church for 55 years. Yet when he asked me where I got it from, I said head on down to the library down the hall and grab a copy of the history of the church. His eyes popped out even more, because he couldn't believe it. Here is my point: how is it that a seasoned high priest could almost lose his testimony because what he had heard over and over and over again in conference did not jive with the history of the church, volume I. I personally do not teach that way. Personally, it drives me nuts. I personally think it is misleading, and eventually, the person finds out what "really" happened and it causes problems. Granted, a solid faithful person will not leave the church over this, but it is a painful experience that does not, IMHO, need to happen.

Next, my comments regarding Mark Willes - Minneapolis. It should be clear to any student of economics who is digging up the truth, not the current crap they teach in university, that the eventual destination of this financial system which we are using is total economic collapse. And yes, it will result in a disaster for anyone using it, even if they be Mormons. We are not immune.

And I'll add one more for the fire. I come home the other day, and my wife informs me that the current issue of LDS Living sports an article about some surfboarder in a bikini in Hawaii. I haven't seen it, but just this week we were discussing modesty in bathing suits since it is summer where I live and I have two daughters myself. What is the point? The point is that putting bikini clad people in church owned publications does not help us raise our kids. In fact, it hurts us because we can no longer say "the church standards do not allow bikini's", because if they did not, they would not have put that picture in their magazine.

All this kind of talk is no different than the defender of the faith, Hugh Nibley, pointing out in Approaching Zion (maybe Brigham challenges the saints), or whatever, where he points out that the original index to the book of mormon had zero references to money. His position was that that could not be an accident, it had to be left out on purpose. So if Brother Nibley was criticizing the brethren, then so am I. And if he is not, then I am not either.

I'll give you one more to chew on. Last week, I field a call from a member of the ward, saying her newly baptized husband is upset for two reasons, but I will only give you one. He is complaining about the watered down lessons, which btw, so did Nibley, the "Defender of the Faith" (Hinckley). So I have to go into damage control on this subject. She thanks me for my comments, and adds yet another one: being the ward missionary, she has been attending the discussions with an investigator and the missionaries. It turns out the investigator was planning on dumping the whole thing because he was not getting what he needed from the missionaries. After a half hour chat with the member missionary, his problems are resolved because this sister opened up the scriptures (not preach my gospel) and was able to answer the guy the way he should have been answered in the first place.

You think the way you want, and I think the way I want. And I think I remember something from the pre-earth life. A certain priesthood holder took 1/3 of our brothers and sisters with him, while standing in the presence of God. I wonder how many followed him because he was a priesthood holder (and a high ranking one at that), not believing he could be giving them lies mixed with truth instead of the plain hard truth. I'm not suggesting we have a Lucifer or a Judas in our midst currently, and I'm not saying it is even our job to point one out if there is one. But I am saying I am not interested in who said what, but only in what is true. I don't love the word of Isaiah because Isaiah said them, but because they are true. Ditto for all the other truth from all other sources, as far as I am able to discern it as such.

Now, what was I posting on earlier? Oh yes: why is Section 123 not included in this year's D&C lessons? Nibley has the right answer for you: it was left it out on purpose, by them.

ithink wrote:

braingrunt wrote:However, no matter how close ithink is to the path I have to think he fell off on the questioning side with remarks such as these:

"
....My mother in law, my wife, and others, have had a hard time with this. We all equally agree now that it would have been better if there had been no whitewashing, since it doesn't help anyone's testimony when they find out what really happened, and it calls into question every other "story" I have heard no matter who it comes from and how many times it is repeated because the credibility of those telling the stories has been found to be lacking.

...Don't worry gruden, a former director of your friendly neighborhood Federal Reserve Bank (Mark Willes - Minneapolis) is now running the Babylonian side of the Lord's kingdom. And I'm sure he'll run it the only place there is to run it -- into the ground.
"

ithink, when you have gone sarcastic and biting on these and other occasions, you have produced a negative endorsement for your questioning position. You have occasionally come across as criticising in exactly the way that modern brethren have warned against.

If that is the way you see it, so be it, but I will note that in this sort of discussion the content is never addressed, only the "way in which it is handled", or "the tone you are using", and so on.

I will explain the comments you quoted from me so you might understand my more clearly. I am not being an idiot when I talk like that, I am just giving you the straight goods.

A member of our bishopric missed a sunday because of something I said in SSchool. It shook him up big time, because it flew in the face of what he has been taught at church for 55 years. Yet when he asked me where I got it from, I said head on down to the library down the hall and grab a copy of the history of the church. His eyes popped out even more, because he couldn't believe it. Here is my point: how is it that a seasoned high priest could almost lose his testimony because what he had heard over and over and over again in conference did not jive with the history of the church, volume I. I personally do not teach that way. Personally, it drives me nuts. I personally think it is misleading, and eventually, the person finds out what "really" happened and it causes problems. Granted, a solid faithful person will not leave the church over this, but it is a painful experience that does not, IMHO, need to happen.

Next, my comments regarding Mark Willes - Minneapolis. It should be clear to any student of economics who is digging up the truth, not the current crap they teach in university, that the eventual destination of this financial system which we are using is total economic collapse. And yes, it will result in a disaster for anyone using it, even if they be Mormons. We are not immune.

And I'll add one more for the fire. I come home the other day, and my wife informs me that the current issue of LDS Living sports an article about some surfboarder in a bikini in Hawaii. I haven't seen it, but just this week we were discussing modesty in bathing suits since it is summer where I live and I have two daughters myself. What is the point? The point is that putting bikini clad people in church owned publications does not help us raise our kids. In fact, it hurts us because we can no longer say "the church standards do not allow bikini's", because if they did not, they would not have put that picture in their magazine.

All this kind of talk is no different than the defender of the faith, Hugh Nibley, pointing out in Approaching Zion (maybe Brigham challenges the saints), or whatever, where he points out that the original index to the book of mormon had zero references to money. His position was that that could not be an accident, it had to be left out on purpose. So if Brother Nibley was criticizing the brethren, then so am I. And if he is not, then I am not either.

I'll give you one more to chew on. Last week, I field a call from a member of the ward, saying her newly baptized husband is upset for two reasons, but I will only give you one. He is complaining about the watered down lessons, which btw, so did Nibley, the "Defender of the Faith" (Hinckley). So I have to go into damage control on this subject. She thanks me for my comments, and adds yet another one: being the ward missionary, she has been attending the discussions with an investigator and the missionaries. It turns out the investigator was planning on dumping the whole thing because he was not getting what he needed from the missionaries. After a half hour chat with the member missionary, his problems are resolved because this sister opened up the scriptures (not preach my gospel) and was able to answer the guy the way he should have been answered in the first place.

You think the way you want, and I think the way I want. And I think I remember something from the pre-earth life. A certain priesthood holder took 1/3 of our brothers and sisters with him, while standing in the presence of God. I wonder how many followed him because he was a priesthood holder (and a high ranking one at that), not believing he could be giving them lies mixed with truth instead of the plain hard truth. I'm not suggesting we have a Lucifer or a Judas in our midst currently, and I'm not saying it is even our job to point one out if there is one. But I am saying I am not interested in who said what, but only in what is true. I don't love the word of Isaiah because Isaiah said them, but because they are true. Ditto for all the other truth from all other sources, as far as I am able to discern it as such.

Now, what was I posting on earlier? Oh yes: why is Section 123 not included in this year's D&C lessons? Nibley has the right answer for you: it was left it out on purpose, by them.

Wonderfully said, I have the same position, I want the truth.

I don't care who says what, it needs to be the truth.

Let's say hypothetically that the church said we need to support the new economic world system and take the vaccines for our safety and future, kind of like a "Pope" move

What would you all do? Of course this is a hypothetical, but would you disregard all the truth you know cause of the movement the church is going in?

I pray that all is well with our leadership and they are as they should be, I have to think this regardless, go forward with Faith like Hinckley said.

My point is that, God is at the head of this Church, I answer to him and his truths.

This is sooo cool. Seems to fit right in!

In 1847, Brigham Young had a marvelous dream in which he
saw and talked with the martyred prophet Joseph Smith.

Joseph's message was clear:

"Tell the people to be humble and faithful, and be sure to keep
the spirit of the Lord and it will lead them right. Be careful and
not turn away the small still voice; it will teach them what to do
and where to go; it will yield the fruits of the kingdom. . . . [T]hey
can tell the spirit of the Lord from all other spirits; it will whisper
peace and joy to their souls."

(Brigham Young Vision, Feb. 23, 1847, Brigham Young Office Files,
Church Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

Source:
http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/ ... sus+Christ

Cowboy wrote:I remember when Pres. Benson was Elder Benson and everyone said...When he gets in as Pres. all hell will break loose as he is a real radical. I think he was an extremist from a political sense although I think he was right. When he was elevated to be our Prophet, he changed immensely.

He did not change at all. I do not know why this is propagated so much amongst the members. Read his talks, he never changed his position.

Cowboy wrote: No radical changes from a political standpoint. No calling Democrats the closest things to communist and so on.

I think this is a rumor started by socialists in the Church to discredit Benson. I have read almost every single one of his talks, read all of his books, etc, and have NEVER heard him say that.

A lot of this "Benson was x before and then changed after he become Prophet" or he used to say, fill in some wild statement here, was all used to discredit his message, and are blatantly false.

Everything he ever taught was in line with the Gospel, and that never changed, became more moderate, toned down, etc.

srry, i could not resist this

on this thread their has been a lot of back and forth on can the leaders mess up or have opinions. Now by reading all the posts on this post, it seems slightly more believe the leaders don't get stuff wrong, then do.

Cowell bless his heart put a post on about Joseph Fielding Smith saying we would never go to the moon. It is in the Political/secret combo section.

What is interesting is in the poll, about 2/3 of the forum members on that post are saying that leaders can mess up and have opinions......hmmmmmmmm

just thought that was interesting. Sounds like more people on here than we think believe that a leader can mess up....and still be the leader.....very interesting

by the way, I don't know what cowell thinks on this, I was just bringing up his post on the moon thing to make a point to this thread. He had nothing to do with this, it is all me

It's difficult to hear your words over your gloating cayenne, but I wouldn't get to excited over "polls" and majority numbers.

After all 9 out of 10 Jews polled thought Jesus was a heretic that deserved to be killed...................

In regards to the original subject "none of our business" my response could be summed up "none of our problem"

Unlike in democracy the 70, 12, and 3 are not accountable to me. What if the prophet told me something ridiculous like if i rub mud in my eyes i could be cured of blindness or leprosy. Or that 20 minutes of small talk with my neighbors about their physical and spiritual well-being once a month was actually a hidden path to eternal increase. The power in the priesthood is unlocked by understanding the principles of faith and the responsibility of their own stewardship. Maybe some of you are already so perfect but I've got my hands full with my own stewardship responsibilities. So i certainly have no right then to get all bent out of shape about others. I think the story of King Uzziah's servant is more then relevant here.

hedgehog wrote:In regards to the original subject "none of our business" my response could be summed up "none of our problem"

Unlike in democracy the 70, 12, and 3 are not accountable to me. What if the prophet told me something ridiculous like if i rub mud in my eyes i could be cured of blindness or leprosy. Or that 20 minutes of small talk with my neighbors about their physical and spiritual well-being once a month was actually a hidden path to eternal increase. The power in the priesthood is unlocked by understanding the principles of faith and the responsibility of their own stewardship. Maybe some of you are already so perfect but I've got my hands full with my own stewardship responsibilities. So i certainly have no right then to get all bent out of shape about others. I think the story of King Uzziah's servant is more then relevant here.

Absolutely.

With regards to making plans: I would expect the church to make plans, start new projects, and even break ground on them right up until the day Christ returns. After all, if "no man knows the day or the hour", how would they know to stop? Even if they did, why would they? Won't temple work and other things be happening during the millenium? The earth isn't going to be destroyed entirely when Christ comes.

Regarding City Creek: I don't know what they are planning to do or why, exactly. I'm more familiar than I'm comfortable sharing publicly with certain people in Church Headquarters. They are very concerned about the neighborhood near the Ogden Temple, or at least they were a couple years ago. From what I understand, it was a pretty scary place. Maybe they're trying to make sure something similar doesn't happen in Salt Lake.

Whatever they're doing or why, I know this: It is the will of the Lord, or else it wouldn't have happened, and however things turn out they will further His work.

I live in Ogden and the area around the Temple was getting very bad indeed. The church has bought up all the land around the temple and is developing it with nice condos and such. It all looks very nice and really helps with the blight. A new mall has been built next door with the help of Larry Miller and is a real asset. Lots of taffic there on a fri/sat night. I think the church is trying to ensure that temple square remains viable as a beacon of light to the world by keeping up the surrounding area.

I live in Ogden and the area around the Temple was getting very bad indeed. The church has bought up all the land around the temple and is developing it with nice condos and such. It all looks very nice and really helps with the blight. A new mall has been built next door with the help of Larry Miller and is a real asset. Lots of taffic there on a fri/sat night. I think the church is trying to ensure that temple square remains viable as a beacon of light to the world by keeping up the surrounding area.

I live near Ogden, and have seen this 1st hand! Great insight!

ithink wrote:General Conference addresses are not scripture, unless the prophet makes it clear it is. He could say, for example: "Thus saith the Lord", and then it is scripture, but normally, it is not even policy.....

If you read President Bensons talked Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet that he gave at BYU on 26 February 1980 you will learn a lot. Here is Point number 6:
"The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you" (D&C 21:4; italics added).

And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: "Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed" (italics added).

Said Brigham Young, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture" (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot], 13:95)."

I think everyone involved in this debate should take a look at that talk, it's a great talk that would...should clear a lot of this debate up.
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6751 is the link to the talk

Joppa wrote:

ithink wrote:General Conference addresses are not scripture, unless the prophet makes it clear it is. He could say, for example: "Thus saith the Lord", and then it is scripture, but normally, it is not even policy.....

If you read President Bensons talked Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet that he gave at BYU on 26 February 1980 you will learn a lot. Here is Point number 6:
"The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you" (D&C 21:4; italics added).

And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: "Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed" (italics added).

Said Brigham Young, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture" (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot], 13:95)."

I think everyone involved in this debate should take a look at that talk, it's a great talk that would...should clear a lot of this debate up.
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6751 is the link to the talk

Nothing here is new to me, nor am I learning anything.

"The rule in that respect is—What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine." : B. H. Roberts, Deseret News (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7)."

and this...

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 3:203–204. ISBN 0884940411)

and this...

President Harold B Lee taught that "if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard"—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it.(Harold B. Lee, "The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, BYU, 8 July 1964)

and this...

Not everything the prophet says is considered to be doctrine. Joseph Smith, Jr. taught "a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such."[17] When he declares new doctrine, "he will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the church."[18] If the doctrine is not accepted by the church as the word of God, members are not bound by the doctrine,[19] even if it comes from the president of the church.[20]

I don't disagree with Benson while Benson was trying to get the stupid masses of saints to find their way out of a paper bag, but nothing they say is binding if it has not been unanimously upheld by the church, and talks at BYU even, where words are spoken that I never hear of are certainly not binding on me. President Grant understood this principle, which is illustrated in another recent topic on this board:

The head of the health department, Dr. Beatty, has requested me to say to the Latter-day Saints that there are more injurious ingredients in coca-cola than there are in coffee, and particularly when some of the good people say: "Give me the double shot." I say to the Latter-day Saints, and it is my right to say it-because you have sung, since this conference started (whether you meant it or not, I am not saying)-

"We thank Thee, O God, for a prophet,

To guide us in these latter days; We thank Thee for sending the gospel

To lighten our minds with its rays; We thank Thee for every blessing

Bestowed by Thy bounteous hand; We feel it a pleasure to serve Thee,

And love to obey Thy command."

Now, if you mean it-I am not going to give any command, but I will ask it as a personal, individual favor to me, to let coca-cola alone. There are plenty of other things you can get at the soda fountains without drinking that which is injurious. The Lord does not want you to use any drug that creates an appetite for itself. -Heber J Grant, April 1921

He says, "Now, if you mean it-I am not going to give any command, but I will ask it as a personal, individual favor to me". Now why would he teach what he did, but then choose not to put us under covenant (bind us) to keep it? Why would Brigham do the same thing, talking about "not putting another covenant" upon the people (because they would just go and break it). That is why Grant didn't do it -- they would just go break it.

It is better to do what we're asked without being constrained, but we are not bound to do so.