Leaderboard

On the OP, I've read recently that the Lord has been offending a LOT of people in the United States. Evangelicals call the Lord "liberal" and weak it is interesting how the world stays the same even as it changes and advances. The same problems during the Lord's ministry exist today and I think that if he were here today the result would be the same, those who profess to worship the Lord and are in the Churches would be some of the first to call for his crucifixion or his death. The Lord was an extremely liberal radical during his time. He called for things that most of the religious individuals at the time were against. He called for forgiving others who offended you, letting your rulers rule over you and keeping your religion separate from that of Caesars. If you accept his apostles also spoke for him, he instituted a type of socialism (called Religious Socialism by many scholars today) where all property was shared amongst those in the church community for the benefit of others. He called for people to feed the poor and care for the sick so that none would be hungry and all would have basic necessities in a society of his. His church called for RIGHTEOUS leaders who were married. He called for faith and common sense. These ideas offended those who were in power. His ideas would tear down the more conservative ideals of the time (where church LEADERS dictated what you could do including how many steps to walk on the Sabbath, etc) which were alarmingly closely aligned to many of the ideas of today. I think people would be surprised at HOW liberal his ideas really are. Even today, his ideas are extremely liberal in relation to what we think in general. In that light, the same type of people (those who were the leaders of the church at the time, those people who followed what those teachers taught) would probably call for his destruction today. (And to be clear, when I refer to leaders of the church I am NOT referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am talking about Church leaders in general. These would be those Pastors, Preachers, and others who teach such ideas as hatred of others today, prosperity gospels, those who teach not to help the poor and to try to stop any aid going to them, those who teach that people get what they deserve and that the poor and disabled deserve whatever has happened to them, those who argue to destroy those who don't agree with you, that teach that anger and distrust are what we should do to others because we feel they did it to us, those who teach revenge, and on and on and on in regards to what I see many who claim to be Christian are actually being taught and actually doing these days).

God is very clearly racist AND sexist. I mean, first, he's white (which means he's racist). Second, he's the power class (racist). Third, He restricted the priesthood and other thing by race. He specifically declared a certain race "My people". I mean if that doesn't fit the modern definition of racist.... And let's not even get started with traditional marriage, polygamy and the patriarchy.

I'm not sure that's the end all of the temple recommend question though. When I'm asked if I keep the Word of Wisdom and say yes it's in light of no coffee, tea, alcohol, or tobacco usage. But..... I often consider whether my eating and drinking choices are in alignment with the Word of Wisdom and make adjustments. I don't think if I confessed that I sometimes have drunk too much Dr. Pepper that any church leader would say, "Well...then we can't issue you your temple recommend, garumph, harumph." But that doesn't mean it's all hunky-dory for me to be pounding 300oz of the stuff in a day.

3. It's always a bit odd to me to have a lay member state they're not sure how comfortable they are with something the church did as if the church is not led by God.

Others have already brought up the general shopping comparison. I'll add two more angles of view: 1. IMO, the temple recommend question about your thoughts, beliefs, and intent. Do you go out of your way to shop at Satan's Groceries where you pay a mark-up intending to fund the owner's efforts to proselytize his Satanic beliefs? Or do you just shop at whichever grocery store happens to be convenient and has the item(s) you want? (Is your intent to get groceries, or is it (also) to fund activities contrary to the Church?) 2. There was only one seller from whom we could buy (back) the Kirtland temple. The Church is probably more picky about its suppliers when there are many to choose from.

I am by no means an artist, but my father was, and I was schooled in the arts. There is a lot of the artist in their art. In essence, all art at its core (meaning and purpose) is a self-portrait. The Traveler

Daniel Peterson has a few personal anecdotes to share about the CoC. It's a pretty interesting read. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2024/03/a-few-more-thoughts-on-the-kirtland-temple-deal.html

I thought it was Vermont? Last count I saw had 11 "uncommitted" delegates heading to Chicago from Minnesota. Which isn't a lot, but it's significant because Minnesota is purple at best, and Dem discord could turn us into a swing state. Combine that with last week's results in Michigan, which already IS a swing state, and we're looking at a very interesting convention. Does this show that there's a liberal bias in higher ed? Or that people with college degrees tend to vote more liberal? This perfectly encapsulates the phenomenon I outlined earlier, I believe in this thread, that party oversaturation can lead to elected officials with bipartisan disdain towards them (Lightfoot, Cuomo, Adams).

He was not sent to the Gentiles, but to the House of Israel. How often did He even interact with them? Very infrequently. His primary mission (in His preaching) was not to preach to or condemn or convert any Gentiles. His primary mission was to bring the House of Israel into the new dispensation. Did he ever offend Gentiles? I don't know. If I searched, I'm sure I could find something. But if His only reason to condemn or offend (if you can call it that) was when he was specifically preaching about obedience to the Law of Moses and how it was a preparatory law for the New Covenant. He condemned Jews for not realizing what the true meaning of the Law was. Gentiles wouldn't even understand what He was saying. He wasn't talking with them.