Finrock

Good evening mormonmusic. Happy Sabbath! :) I'm sure you are familiar with Alma 32 that teaches some profound things about faith and knowledge. Even though what Alma teaches is probably pretty self-evident to you, please allow me to give you my understanding of what Alma is saying. First, Alma teaches that a person gains his faith as a result of hearing God's word and giving, if only a portion of their heart, so that God's word can be planted within. Alma then compares the word of God to a seed. He teaches that if a person accepts this seed and plants it in their heart and nourishes the seed, that the seed will begin to grow and to expand. I understand this to mean that if a person accepts God's word and begins to apply the principles of the gospel in to their life, they will begin to experience the positive and good consequences of their obedience. When a person experiences these things Alma says that this will increase their faith even if they do not have a perfect knowledge of all things yet. But, Alma also says that when a person experiences the personal growth as a result of the gospel in their life, that not only is their faith increased, but also they must say to themselves that the gospel, or as Alma says, the seed, is good because it is growing and expanding. At this point Alma asks a question: "31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed?" To which Alma replies: "31 I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness. 32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. 33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good. 34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand. 35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?" So, here is the point of my post. What did Alma say? He said as a person experiences the good results of the gospel in their life, they know with a perfect knowledge that the gospel is good. I know what Alma is talking about because I have experienced, felt, and seen the good results of living the gospel in my life and I "know" with a perfect knowledge that the gospel is true and good and "[my] faith is dormant" pertaining to this. In other words, the status of the gospel of Jesus Christ is not a matter of faith for me, it is a matter of perfect knowledge. And, just as Alma continues to explain in subsequent verses, this does not mean that I have a perfect knowledge of all things, but there are things that I know and wherein my faith is dormant. In none of the things that I know did my knowledge come about through visions or heavenly visitations but rather by simple and quiet spiritual experiences over a period of time as given by the Holy Ghost. We don't need visions or extra-special visitations to have a perfect knowledge of eternal truths. If you want to know if serving others is good and right, then serve others selflessly and you will know it is good and true. Once you've experienced the joy and happiness that comes from living a selfless life of service, you don't need faith to accept that principle. And so on... Regards, Finrock

Good evening HappyGuy989. :) Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. I also appreciate the opportunity you have given me to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding of my motives and intentions. What is or isn't condescending is a subjective thing so it has always been hard for me to know if my words are going to be received in the way that I have intended them. I'm sorry you felt my remarks to be condescending. I can only tell you what my intentions were and they were not to be condescending or insulting. Also, I haven't consciously or purposefully made any accusations about how you have acted at all. I do not know if or if you have not acted in any particular way and I have no interest to know. I have only tried to reply to those things that you have written as it is the only thing that I can do. In the particular post in question I was replying to your reply to rameumptom in which it seemed to me that you had misunderstood his point. Your post indicated that rameumptom equated having homosexual tendencies to indulging in sin when in fact that isn't what rameumptom said. Further, taking all of your posts as a whole where you've expressed your growing doubts about the truthfulness of the Church, your doubts in God's justice, and your doubts in the Plan of Salvation (to name a few items), I personally felt that my posts have been very relevant and appropriate. Then again it could be that I have completely misunderstood the meaning of the words you have written and your statements. If this is the case, then I apologize for my weakness to understand and communicate effectively. Please allow me to unequivocally state that since I've read your OP and subsequent posts, I have never thought nor even considered that you have been acting on your homosexual tendencies. I honestly have not cared whether you have or have not and I don't mean to state that in a malicious way. It's simply just been something that is irrelevant to the points that I've been trying to express and until now I've not even considered the idea one way or the other. Lastly, I sense from your comments that this is a very sensitive time for you and I suspect that because I do not agree with many of your sentiments you will likely find my words offensive and condescending. If you wish to continue discussing these things, please believe me when I say that I have no desire to offend you or cause you any harm in any way. If you cannot believe this I would rather remove myself from this discussion than risk being misunderstood and/or unintentionally being a cause for any more emotional hurt to you. Kind Regards, Finrock

Good morning HappyGuy989. I hope you are doing well and happy! :) I don't think that rameuptom was making the claim that being SSA = indulging in sin and temptation. Rameuptom used very specific words that have specific meanings to make a point. I think if you look at what Rameuptom, myself, and others have said carefully you will realize that we are saying that all of us are born with certain inherent (carefully consider the meaning of "inherent") tendencies. Some of these inherent tendencies when acted upon produce actions that are good and some of these inherent tendencies when acted upon produce actions that are not good. People who may have an inherent homosexual tendency are not unique in having inherent tendencies that if acted upon results in sin. For instance, it is held by many in the medical field that for some people there may be a genetic predisposition to alcoholism (Source). Now, I'm not trying to get in to a discussion to prove or disprove any genetic predisposition theories but let us assume for the sake of making a point that we accept that such conditions are unquestionably true because a part of the equation when speaking of SSA is that it is a question of nature as opposed to nurture. Now, carefully consider the next few italicized statements, because they are at the crux of what we are trying to say: I think in the case of any genetic predisposition to alcoholism, most people would agree that having this "natural" predisposition does not justify acting on that predisposition. The Church and many of us here on this thread have been arguing the same point in regards to SSA. Having a natural predisposition to homosexual conduct does not justify one in acting on that predisposition. If God has commanded that sexual relations ought only to exist between a man and a woman within the bonds of matrimony then one is not justified in acting contrary to that commandment regardless of circumstances or predispositions. I contend and as well as others, that it is precisely God's command that sexual relations ought only to exist between a man and a woman within the bonds of matrimony. Therefore acting on any homosexual predispositions constitutes a violation of God's law. Further, just as one who may have a predisposition towards alcohol and alcoholism can learn from this "weakness" and turn it in to a strength, so also can a person who has a predisposition to homosexuality learn from their "weakness" and turn it in to a strength. The simple truth is this: You do not have to act on your homosexual tendencies and only by setting aside God's commandments can you justified acting on your homosexual tendencies. Your choices are ultimately very fundamental in nature. Will you continue to obey God regardless of circumstance or will you reject God's commandments in order to act on your homosexual feelings. This principle of choosing to obey or disobey is what it comes down to for all of us. Kind Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon SomeAnonymousGuy. It is a pleasure to meet you and welcome to the forum! :) While I am not going to pretend that I perfectly understand your situation I do have my own trials and problems in life that I can draw from to perhaps provide you with some ideas that are relevant. Understand that while you may be suffering and this suffering is hard to bear, you are experiencing the common human condition. In other words, you are not alone in your suffering. The situation may be different but all of us go through periods of trials. In fact, I imagine that the boys who are causing your distress have their own trials. Perhaps they can mask their suffering better than you, but be assured they likely don't have it all together either. In other words, you and these guys are on a level playing field. And, if you can bring yourself to do so, consider having empathy towards these boys for what trials they are facing that is causing them to find self-confidence by putting down others. Having empathy towards our enemies, in and of itself, can be a source of strength for you. It sounds ridiculous and contradictory, but it is amazing how things work out when we apply gospel principles in our lives, especially when the situation makes it extremely difficult to do so. Something else to consider: God generally doesn't answer prayers in our timeframe or in the manner that we want. That God doesn't always answer our prayers immediately is necessary for us to exercise faith and trust in Him. Also, we need to experience life, the good and the bad. First, if God always gives us the answer immediately and exactly what we want, how does this demonstrate our faith in Him? It doesn't. Trust and faith require us to continue to be true to God even when His presence and assistance isn't realized or felt. Secondly, if God were to take away all of our suffering from us, how could we learn and grow? We couldn't. It is through our experiences in life that we become better people. It is precisely in these types of situations, where life is rough and all seems doomed, that our decisions matter the most. If we can maintain our faith, maintain our desire to be disciples, even while in the midst of the most horrible of circumstances, it says everything about our character and who we truly are. And, eventually, God will bless us for our diligence. Hang in there. We can't always pray away our troubles. Sometimes we must endure. This is not to say that we won't be sustained in our trials because I certainly have a testimony that we will be sustained in our trials when we continue to exercise faith and live the gospel the best that we can. Lastly, from my experiences anyways, may I suggest that you make your requests to Heavenly Father unconditional. What I mean is, let Him know that you will accept His will, no matter the results. Make your petition to Heavenly Father, but always let Him know that you will not forsake Him or His gospel even if things don't turn out the way you want it to and trust that God knows you, He understands your circumstance, and He knows all things and His wisdom is greater than all wisdom combined. He knows what is best. Kind Regards, Finrock

I also wanted to address this question. It assumes that those who don't subscribe to government mandated health care are people who do not want to help their fellow man. It is wholly fallacious and without merit. Charity can only occur when an agent acts freely and without coercion to help others. If charity is coerced through the force of law then no charity can be performed. I freely try to live the principles of the gospel and I freely choose to be charitable not because I fear God or because I fear the consequences but because I love God and want to be his disciple. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon webbwayne. Welcome to the forums! :) Here is my dilemma. Your position is comparing apples to oranges. You have the issue of being charitable and then you have the issue of government mandated "charity" (which is really a contradiction in terms and thus it doesn't really exist). So, yes, we should be charitable but that doesn't mean that we should have government mandated health insurance. One inalienable right is the right to property. Without the inalienable right to property, our other inalienable rights such as right to liberty, to life, and to pursue happiness could not be exercised. A man has no inalienable right to another man's property. It is as simple as that. A government is not justified in taking the property of a person, by force, and then redistributing it to another person. Government mandated welfare (which includes health care coverage) violates our inalienable right to property and is a travesty. It is inconceivable to me that any just person would feel entitled to another's property. Regards, Finrock

Good morning mormonmusic! I hope you are doing well today. :) I think you've got the answer. The key to understanding this is to know what is entailed in the word "gospel". It means "the good news". It does not mean that all doctrine and all knowledge are contained within it. When it is said that the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel it means exactly that. It contains the fullness of the "good news." Stated most simply the gospel is, "God’s plan of salvation, made possible through the atonement of Jesus Christ" (Source). The first principles and ordinances of the gospel entails the fullness of the gospel. To get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, see 3 Nephi 27:13-21 and D&C 76:40-43. I hope you find this helpful. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon ehkape. It is a pleasure to meet you! :) Not everything that would be the Church as we know it today was given to Joseph Smith at one go. It is God's way for us to learn piecemeal, so to speak. As we are given light and truth and obey, then our capacity to receive more light and truth increases. Joseph Smith and the early Saints had to grow just as all of us do. Also, it is useful to understand the type of person Joseph Smith was. Unlike most other theologians and/or philosophers, Joseph didn't just write down the revelations he received as some intellectual pursuit for understanding, but he had a drive to implement and make God's word become a reality. As he received revelation, he acted on it and implemented it. It was precisely because of this attitude, I believe, that eventually lead to Joseph Smith receiving further light and knowledge pertaining to the Kingdom of God. So, as we study the early documents of the Church we will see a definitive pattern of growth and understanding as Joseph Smith and the Saints became prepared to live the next level of understanding that God wanted to establish with His people. Our 9th Article of Faith says it all: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" It is OK for God's prophet to add further understanding to scripture. As the Church grows new offices may be needed and instituted just as it has been done in the past. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Elphaba. How has your day been? I hope wonderful! :) Well, like you said you were saying that no apology was made. I agree. Not only was my post saying that I agree that no apology was offered, my post also provided a reason why I agree. I think your position makes the most sense in light of the fact that the Church wasn't responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Did this answer your question and help you to understand the purpose of my post better? Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Rydney. I hope you are doing well today! :) The Law of Chastity is not a "heterosexual standard." It is God's universal standard applicable to all persons. Sexual relations outside of marriage is sin (Alma 39:1-13). For one to advocate that it is OK to have sexual relations outside of marriage is advocating for sin. Satan advocates that we commit sin and Satan is an enemy to all righteousness. He wants us to be miserable like he is (2 Ne. 2:27). We will be miserable like he is when we commit sin because "wickedness never was happiness" (Alma 41:10). Therefore, your advice in this matter is not good advice at all. In fact it is evil advice and should be shunned by any disciple of Jesus Christ. There are many heterosexual people who never marry yet they remain celibate. Suppressing sinful actions and conduct is precisely what we should do. We are not left defenseless in fighting sinful inclinations or temptations. We can overcome these things through the atonement of Jesus Christ. True disciples of Christ would never advocate that one give in to sinful urges and desires. Homosexual individuals are no exception. Their condition is not unique to the human condition. All of us must suppress, control, and change any sinful conduct or not act on sinful inclinations. It isn't the opinion of this forum that sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful and this includes homosexual sexual relations. This is God's word. It is His standard and that is what a person should be most concerned about. Thus far your position is diametrically opposed to what God and His prophets expects from us. Regards, Finrock

Good morning HappyGuy989. It is a pleasure to meet you and welcome to the forums! :) First of all, let me comment that Rydney's advice is not good advice at all. Essentially he is advocating that you commit sin, which is never a good thing. I'm going to be quoting a lot from this interview of Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman about same-gender attraction. If you haven't read this before, I suggest that you do. I think it addresses and answers many of the questions and concerns you have presented. Here is the link. I think one important concept needs to be understood about our imperfect mortal condition. All of us are born with conditions, susceptabilities, and imperfections that we will need to suppress and control. You need to realize that your problem is not unique and I don't mean that in the sense that there are other gay LDS people, but rather it is a natural condition of mortality to have tendencies that we must learn to control. This is precisely what the Plan of Salvation is about. It is about us living the gospel of Jesus Christ and drawing upon the mercy of Jesus and the power of His atonement to overcome our trials and our adversities, including inclinations and tendencies we are born with. It is a false notion to suppose that simply because we might have an inclination towards something that we must act on that inclination. Elder Oaks, speaking specifically about homosexuality commented the following: "Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal" (Source). Know also the promise that God has given to His children that, “[t]here hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13). I do not pretend to understand your particular struggle but I do know that for those who desire to be disciples of Christ, they can find a way to live happy and fulfilling lives in the gospel of Jesus Christ despite their inclinations. I like what Elder Wickman said on this matter: "I think I would say to...anyone that was [struggling with same-gender attraction] to strive to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it’s not the only one. What’s more, merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage...But even that, in the fullness of life as we understand it through the doctrines of the restored gospel, eventually can become possible. In this life, such things as service in the Church, including missionary service, all of this is available to anyone who is true to covenants and commandments." The worst thing for anyone is to forsake the gospel for any reason. Cling on to it with your might and pray with sincerity, with faith, and with real intent to have your testimony strengthened. Do those things you know are right in the gospel and rely on Jesus Christ and His mercy and you will find peace. Kind Regards, Finrock

Good evening Elphaba! I hope you are well tonight. :) This make sense considering the Church was not responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. An apology is appropriate when one has committed an offense towards another. Obviously an apology from the Church wouldn't have been appropriate, but "profound regret" for the massacre definitely is. Regards, Finrock

Good evening InquisitiveSoul! :) I am sorry to hear of your difficulties. Although I cannot authoritatively speak for your specific situation, I do know that Satan is "...an enemy to God" and "...to all righteousness" (Mosiah 4:14; Mosiah 16:5). He fights against God and righteousness continually (Moro. 7:12). His purpose is to tempt us to sin and bring us down to be miserable just as he is (2 Ne. 2:27). From experience in my own desires to change for the better and to repent it certainly seems to me that Satan strives especially hard to thwart my progress at those moments. Also as a full-time missionary I saw that when people would receive a witness from the Spirit that the gospel was true and had made the commitment to be baptized, all of a sudden a number of issues would arise which seemed designed to bring doubt, to distract, or somehow prevent the person from going through with their baptism. So, is this the case now? I don't know, but it certainly wouldn't be without precedent for Satan to be working hard against your progress in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'll close my post by quoting Elder Richard G. Scott from the Quorum of the Twelve: “You will have challenges and hard decisions to make throughout your life. Be determined now to always do what is right and let the consequence follow. The consequence will always be for your best good” ("Do What is Right", Liahona, March 2001, 14). Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon MarginOfError. I hope you've had a great day! :) First of all, thank you for taking the time to read my post and engaging in this conversation with me. Well, we shouldn't confuse freedom and free agency with anarchy. The Declaration of Independence reinforces the truth that all individuals are born with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One may be tempted to think, "Well, since I have an inalienable right to pursue happiness, I have the right to do whatever makes me happy!" Such a notion would be incorrect, of course, as it neglects to consider that all individuals hold the same right. Therefore, we can exercise our inalienable rights only to the extent that they do not infringe on the inalienable rights of others. If this discussion were to be about abortion, I would argue that it is within a governments duty to protect the inalienable right to life of an innocent person. However, because this isn't about abortion, I will go no further. Suffice it to say, I don't find your counter argument against the principles of free agency to be very compelling because it confuses the principle of free agency with anarchy and misses the point. I hear your challenge. Can you provide proof for your assertion? If so, will you do so? I do not agree that the "church collects and distributes funds the same way as the government does." I freely entered in to covenants with the Church and continue to freely participate in it. In a government mandated system, I have no choice. So, even if the system is reprehensible to me I cannot choose to not buy in to the system and I cannot choose to not participate. These are two fundamentally opposed principles. The difference is diametrical. My second objection to your point in this quote is that wealth redistribution or mandated welfare is not the same as having to pay taxes. Being against wealth redistribution does not mean that one is against paying taxes. When a community selects individuals and delegates to them the authority to protect the community it does so with the understanding that those who are representing the community must be supported in their task to do so, else the representatives cannot do what they have been delegated to do. Our government taxes it's citizens so that it can go ahead with its task of protecting our inalienable rights. This is one thing. It is another thing altogether when said government begins to take wealth intended to protect our individual rights and redistributes it to other private citizens because they are needy. It is wholly outside of the scope of the duties of a government. It becomes stealing when the government takes upon itself authorities it does not have and forcefully removes wealth from one to give to another. I look forward to the rest of your response. Have a safe trip! :) Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Bini. It is a pleasure to meet you! I hope this day has been a wonderful day for you. :) My thinking is along the same line as the sentiments that Blackmarch expressed. I think that the greatest honor one can do for their parents is to live the gospel of Jesus Christ as completely as possible. I think this is true even when the parents may loathe how you live and/or your beliefs. One day they will know how much honor you brought to them and your family by chosing to follow Jesus Christ. Of course my response entails a broad spectrum of specific actions, but I think when one is truly living the Gospel they, amongst other things, will be persons who show respect, kindness, humility, meekness, and charity towards their parents. I am certain, however, that honoring one's parents never entails making choices that are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. So, I think if we accept that honoring one's parents is to live the Gospel as completely as we can, then perhaps cultural considerations aren't as important any more. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Moksha! I hope you are doing well. :) I don't think that any good Mormon would argue that caring for the poor is a bad thing or that it is something we should not do. Therefore, I don't believe the issue is about whether or not one should care for the poor. Rather, the issue is what is the best way to help the poor and is it the place of a secular government to mandate welfare? One thing is for certain and that is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is rooted in free agency. Without agency the Plan of Salvation would be useless to actually save anyone. The freedom of the individual to choose is sacrosanct. God respects our agency to such a degree that He often allows horrible things to be done by people and to people. Understanding the principle of agency, it's vital role in our salvation, and that it is an inalienable virtue of individuals is key to answering the questions as to "What is the best way to serve the poor?" and "Is it the place of a secular government to mandate welfare?" The problem with any government mandated welfare is that it is founded on the principle of forced action. This is in opposition to the gospel principle of freedom and agency. First, forced action has no redeeming qualities. What I mean is that if one is forced to do something, they cannot be saved. It is contrary to our Heavenly Father's plan. In fact, it was Lucifer's plan to "force" everyone back to heaven, which was of course contradictory in nature. Second, forced action is an affront to man's agency. This has always been the primary reason why secular communism has failed or produced repressive governments because such notions rely on man forfeiting their freedom so that a government can decide what is best. I will go so far as to say that any law or program that errodes personal freedoms are fundamentally Satanic, no matter how they are masked in language of supposedly serving the "greater good." In contrast, God's way of "communal" living is always freely entered in to and freely participated in. Another problem with government mandated welfare is that it is a form of stealing. Any government program that forces individuals to give up property or wealth so that it can be redistributed to others effectively is government endorsed stealing. In the United States, a constitutional republic that is based on governance of the people, by the people, and for the people, any government sanctioned redistribution of wealth constitutes an overreach in the governments delegated authorities. Our form of government is based on delegated rights from the individual. As individuals, none of us are justified in forcefully taking the property of another and give it to someone else, even if it is to the needy. Because we do not possess this right it cannot be delegated to the government. Therefore forceful redistribution of wealth by the government is an exercise of authority that it does not rightfully have, which, in this case is stealing from one to give to another. A successful welfare program must be one that is founded on the principles of freedom. It must respect individual freedoms and agency. It should hold those receiving assistance accountable. It should come from those institutions that are best equipped to provide for the needy, which are our religious and private humanitarian organizations. It should be a program that provides opportunities for individuals to actually live in a charitable way rather than forcing "goodness". It should never be a program that sacrifices personal agency and freedom for the supposed "greater good". Regards, Finrock

Good evening HiJolly! :) Thank you for taking the time that you did to take part in this discussion and respond to my posts. Although I sense that you did so against your better judgment, it has not been a waste of time for me. Regards, Finrock

Hello HiJolly. :) I don't think this correctly describes my position. I do claim that the Church of Jesus Christ is not only an earthly institution. However, it is not beyond our view or knowledge. I think your view of the Church is artificially limited to only an earthly institution. I have illustrated how such a view is untenable based on the knowledge we have about the Church. And, despite your claims to the contrary I have provided logical proofs, arguments, and evidences to illustrate my point. None of them have been addressed thus far by any person in the course of this discussion. I'll make a synopsis of my evidences and proofs directly and also provide additional proofs. Each point I've made I've established and provided evidence for. Please consider my convenient collection of evidences and proofs that I have provided in the various posts to support my position. All of them are points that others can refer to and evaluate if one only takes the time to do so. Evidences and Proofs Supporting Finrock's Position 1. The Church of Jesus Christ is not just an earthly institution. One support I provided for this assertion was that I showed that the Church was taken from the earth during the Apostasy, later restored through Joseph Smith, but it never ceased to exist. This position is supported by scripture. 2. The Church of Jesus Christ is not contingent upon the mortal members of the Church. This point is also proven by virtue of the fact that the Church continued to exist even when it was no longer established on the earth. 3. The Church of Jesus Christ is perfect and infallible. This conclusion is supported by the following logical proof: a.) If the Church is Jesus' church and Jesus Christ is at the head of His Church, then the status of the Church of Jesus Christ is contingent upon the status of Jesus b.) The status of Jesus Christ is that he has all truth, all authority, all keys, and He is perfect and infallible. c.) Therefore the status of the Church of Jesus Christ is that it has all truth, all authority, all keys, and the Church is perfect and infallible. Conclusion: The Church of Jesus Christ is perfect and infallible and contains all truth, all authority, and all keys. 4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is perfect and infallible. This conclusion is supported by the following logical proof: a.) If any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is (P)perfect and (I)infallible, has all (T)truth, all (A)authority, all (K)keys, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints necessarily contains the qualities P, I, T, A, and K. b.) Jesus Christ is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints c.) Jesus Christ has the qualities P, I, T, A, and K d.) Therefore, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contains P, I, T, A, and K Provided is my proofs and evidences. One cannot justifiably claim that my position cannot be logically argued, or that the evidence cannot be tested by others. If one disagrees with my conclusions, one need only to demonstrate that my premises are false. Regards, Finrock

Good morning rameumptom. I hope your week has started out good! :) Your position in this quote is supported by two logical fallacies. Equivocation and an ad hominem. Disregarding the ad hominem, I'll address the equivocation. I am speaking of The Church of Jesus Christ as a seperate entity from it's mortal members. I've provided reasons why this view is justified. Instead of addressing my evidence the assertion you provide equivocates by speaking to the Church as the collection of it's mortal members and indistinguishable from it's mortal members. This position is obviously false as is evidenced by the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ was taken from the earth during the apostasy but did not cease to exist, therefore proving that it's existence is not contingent upon it's mortal members. It is indeed a separate entity and this fact must be addressed if you are going to avoid the equivocation in the future. The rest of your post, supported by the equivocation, continues to speak to individuals and their understanding of truth and speaks nothing of the actual Church. Please allow me to attempt a different method to illustrate my point. I will ask a series of questions and instead of waiting on a response I will answer them because I think the answers are obvious to a Mormon audience. Of course, if you disagree with any of my answers we can address those concerns. Reminder Legend: "The Church of Jesus Christ" = "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" Questions 1. Who's church is the Church of Jesus Christ? Answer: It is Jesus' Church. 2. Who is at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ? Answer: Jesus Christ is at the head. 3. Does Jesus Christ have all authority, all keys, and all truth? Answer: Yes 4. Is Jesus Christ perfect and infallible in every way? Answer: Yes If The Church of Jesus Christ is Jesus' Church and Jesus is at the head of this Church then the status of this Church is contingent upon the status of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has all truth, all authority, all keys, and He is perfect and infallible, therefore by necessity His Church must contain all truth, all authority, all keys, and be perfect and infallible. Conclusion: The Church of Jesus Christ contains all truth, all authority, all keys, and is perfect and infallible. Kind Regards, Finrock

Good evening rameumptom! I hope all is well with you tonight. :) I don't accept the premise that it is an evolving church. I believe only our understanding of truth and doctrine to be evolving. I do believe that it is a living Church in that what principles are applicable or in what way any respective principle is applied to it's mortal members changes. Truth does not change. The Church contains all truth even if we are not aware of it. I don't accept that doctrines have changed nor that they have evolved. Again, only what principles are applicable, what principles we are aware of, how we understand a principle, and how each principle is applied, changes. The practice of polygamy and the ending of it's earthly practice is not an example of evolving or changing doctrine. It is an example of a principle that is still true but not applicable to us during the current mortal period. Polygamy still exist in heaven. I don't accept that Adam-God theory was ever doctrine. It was never vetted through the scriptural process to become binding doctrine. It was never canonical in any respect. I think you are confusing the entity "Church" with the entities "individuals." A perfect Church with imperfect members can logically exist. And I suggest that this is precisely what the reality is. I agree, but this doesn't help your point. We, individuals, do not have to have all keys or even be aware of all truths in order for the Church to be perfect. You are simply speaking to the status of our knowledge and authority, not to the status of the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ contains all truth and all authority. This does not necessarily mean that all truth is known to us or that all authority is given to us. Now, The Church of Jesus Christ (please see my post to HiJolly to see how I am using this this name) is not simply an earthly institution. It existed during premortality, it existed during the time of Adam and Eve, it existed all through-out history, it even existed during the time of the Apostasy. Obviously there were times when it wasn't established on the earth, but the Church of Jesus Christ has always existed. Joseph Smith did not create a new church. God, through Joseph Smith, restored the Church of Jesus Christ on to the earth. Therefore The Church of Jesus Christ is not contingent upon it's mortal members in any way. One way to think of this is to imagine that the Church of Jesus Christ is a container that has always existed that contains all truth, all authority, and all keys. The mortals who join this Church are given those truths, those authorities, and those keys that are requisite to them at any given time. However, the status of the members' knowledge of truth, their authority, or their keys does not affect the container that has always existed and in which all truth, all authority, and all keys exist. Speaking of what principles people are aware of, what principles are applicable, or what principles are law during any given time in mortality only speaks to the membership of the Church, but not to the Church itself. The Church of Jesus Christ is a perfect and infallible Church with imperfect and fallible members. You are, of course, free to do as you wish. Please note, however, that other than my initial post to this thread addressed to you and HiJolly, I've made no attempt other than now to address any of the points that you have made. So, if this point was addressed to me, realize that if a person has taken your "statements in an entirely different direction", it cannot have been me. Regards, Finrock

Good evening HiJolly! It's a pleasure to be able to respond to your post. :) Thank you for the compliment! Thank you also for taking the time to respond despite your reservations to do so. I do appreciate the show of respect. Please bear with me as I take some time to explain. First, please realize that there is no doubt that I'm a fallible man. Because of my inherent flaws I am prone to mistakes including mistakes in communication. Add on top of that the fact that we are attempting a conversation on an internet discussion forum and communication can sometimes become very difficult. I point this out in order to ask that if you would be charitable and allow for some benefit of the doubt that my intentions are to communicate fairly and honestly, and therefore give me an opportunity to fix my mistakes in communication when they arise. Now, here is my attempt to clarify any confusion as to what I've been intending to communicate. I've been using the names "Church of God", "Church of Jesus Christ", and "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" interchangeably. To me these names all denote the same church. Even in the Wikipedia article you quoted, the name changes listed did not denote to different churches each time the name was changed, but rather it was simply a different way to name the exact same church. I assumed that this was common knowledge. Once I realized that this was causing some confusing, I wanted to clarify that when I was using those three different names of God's (Jesus') Church, I was always and in each case speaking of the exact same Church. This is why I created the Legend so that it would be more clear as to what I had intended to communicate. However, my point doesn't fall or stand on what God's Church is named. Therefore, in order to simplify and clarify any further communication I will use the name "The Church of Jesus Christ" from here on out and please know that by this I mean the Church that was established on this earth by Jesus Christ during His mortal ministry, which was subsequently lost from the earth, and then later restored through Joseph Smith in 1830 and which is currently known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." My reason for using the name "The Church of Jesus Christ" is because it is shorter to write and it correctly describes who's church I am talking about. Is this acceptable to you? Regards, Finrock

Good evening HiJolly! I hope you are enjoying your weekend. :) You've lost me. I feel like I've taken some psychedelic drug and awoken in a foreign land... Here is my synopsis of the arguments being made and my attempt to understand what has happened: Legend *Church=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or The Church of God or The Church of Jesus Christ *Any statement that comes after a number is a conclusion *Any statement that comes after a letter is a premise Argument for the Church Being Fallible 1. The Church is fallible a.) The Church is an earthly institution b.) The Church has imperfect members Counter Argument for Church Being Fallible 2. Conclusion 1 is false a.) The Church isn't just an earthly institution b.) The Church is independent of it's members What do you think I claimed that I am now feigning that I didn't claim when I claimed it...over and over again? Kind Regards, Finrock

Good evening HiJolly! :) I don't see why, but, OK. Will you show me how? I regard the Church of God, the Church of Jesus Christ, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be one in the same. I've been using these terms synonymously. What is the subject of your "it" in that statement? Regards, Finrock

Before I respond I want to add some precision to my language. I alluded to this fact in my first post to this thread, but I wish to more precisely state that I believe that the Church exist independent of it's mortal members. I see. Then this is precisely the cause of our disagreement. I do not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is only an earthly institution. I do not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is contingent upon it being legally established and recognized by governments. Again, this goes back to the metaphysical disagreement that we have. Joseph Smith only restored God's church as an institution on this earth. The Church of Jesus Christ did not come in to existence in 1830 from a state of non-existence. It was simply restored to the earth. I'm not sure how this is relevant. I'm making no claims regarding personal worthiness in any context. I hope my clarification in the beginning of this post helps. Also, let me state that I believe God's Church exist because God exist. It does not exist because of the members. Well, because something "is real and extant" does not make that something necessarily relevant to the topic of discussion. Nonetheless, I think I understand more completely the reason the Church of the Firstborn was brought up during this discussion. If I understood you correctly, you were offering the CoF as being the Church that is infallible as opposed to the CoJC. Well, that is an assertion, for sure, but still I'm not sure it's authoritative. And even if it were a given that your assertion about the CoF is true I'm still not sure how that fact speaks yea or nay of the idea that the CoJC is also infallible. That is where my question about relevancy comes in. I've made no claims to this effect. I do not see where these statements fit in. I'm not sure I know what this statement means: "Truth does not = perfect". I do know I have not attempted to make such claims. When you say, "If [truth] is not useful, it is not necessary to declare..." to what point that I have made is this being addressed to? As far as your comments about what I believe it seems in context that you are implying that I believe something that is false yet my survival, presumambly my survival in the Church, requires this false belief. I would categorize a comment like that as a condescending comment. In any case, it isn't relevant so I will discard it. Regards, Finrock

Hello marts1! I'm not sure if we've interacted with each other before, but it is a pleasure tomeet you. :) I agree. This is why my first post to HiJolly and to rameumptum suggested that some equivocation might be going on here. Regards, Finrock