seamusz

Probably just to clarify that they haven't actually changed any of the original content of their post. I rarely explain if I made an edit right after submitting a post....but if I find a mistake much later than when I first posted, I usually just say I edited to fix spelling or something. I dunno....that's why I do it. ← Yeah, I don't want people to think that I'm mixing stuff around when I edit a mistake. That edit note was probably unnessesarry, but I thought it best to be clear.

1. You don't speak for God. 2. Wrong - I am rightly entitled to a Temple Recommend. There is nothing in my opinions that preclude me from having one. No member is required to accept Brigham Young's mistakes nor believe what a man says just because he is a prophet. 3. I am in fine harmony with the quotes I posted from prophets, presidents and apostles but you seem to discount them entirely. 1. True, but the Prophets do. 2. Your recommend is between you, your Stake President, Bishop and the Lord. It is none of my business. 3. You cannot pick and choose which statements you are in harmony with. If that were the case I would be justified in practicing poligamy. You say that you are in harmony with the quotes you posted, however I am in harmony with all of the quotes posted. <!--QuoteBegin-Snow It just won't do for you to misrepresent what I said. That's dishonest and might put you out of harmony with God but that's between you and your maker. What I said or implied is that the EQ Presidency would easily understand the error and be able to reconcile it to the Church's veracity without missing a beat. Never did I even come close to suggesting that their thoughts took precedence over a Stake President... except obviously if there were under the impression that black got the priesthood in 1978, they would be right while BY was wrong. I can assure you, however, that this EQ President would never fall into the same logical fallacy as the one "reportedly" made by the Stake President in question. My mistake in misunderstanding you. Please explain to me then, why the info on you EQ Pres statement was pertinent at all? Is that last line accusing Daizymae of lying? So noted that you think that BY was inspired by God to be mistaken about blacks getting the priesthood when they did. Course that puts you in an undoctrinal postiion but so long as you feel the Spirt - hey, whatever. And... don't you think that it is more likely that instead of getting a testimony from the Spirit about Daisy's posts, even though they are demonstably wrong, that what you are really feeling is some sympathy for someone who shares your opinion and is getting roughed up a bit by a sarcastic bully and some disdain for the rude agressor? Maybe - ya think? yeah Snow, you are a big bully . The statements of Daizy were in line with the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles, yours were not. So even though you were able to twist things to your purpose, I saw the truth fully defined by Daizy's statements, then that was confirmed by the spirit. Daizy can hold her own, I'm sure see isn't worried about you stealing her lunch money or anything. Wrong. My obligation, as a Mormon is to accept truth. I can't accept error just cuz someone said to. I think you should set an appointment up with you Bishop and tell him of your stance. I'll bet you that he tries to convince you otherwise. And furthermore, I'll bet that if you tryed to teach this in a Sunday School class, or Quorum Meeting, you would be corrected. I would talk to the Bishop first, so as to avoid any awkward moments. <!--QuoteBegin-Snow Wrong again. I can easily be persuaded by a reasonable or superior argument. However, not a single person has put up an argument. Ya'll only say, BY was right or BY was wrong by he was wrong by the Spirit of revelation. Neither of which is an answer that an educated and reasonable person would accept. But by all means - if you have an argument, stop moaning and present it. Like I said, you don't speak for God so you just sound silly when you try to tell me how the Spirit does this or does that. One thing I know for sure, or at least have solid faith in - the Spirit doesn't contract truth and reason is truth. Moaning.... how am I moaning? But anyway, I have to ask: Would you really change you position on this issue if I had a "superior argument"? I have difficulty believing this. EDIT: Fixed the stupid quote tags

You shouldve seen the size of the vein in the middle of my forehead.... HUGE!

This is a good subject, perhaps worthy of its own thread. But to do a quick response to your question. In the context of why LDS take the stance that God=church, it is quite simply a matter of how we view the Church. If the Lord is (as we believe) the head of this church, then in order for us to come close to him, we need to go to His house and become as involved as we can in His church. Those who do not do this are distancing themselves away from God. This is purely on an individual basis, so it doesn't apply for a comparison. In other words I am not saying that Mormons who go to church are closer to God than everyone who doesn't go to church. So, I'm saying that anyone with a relationship with God will become closer through the church. But it isn't justifiable for someone to use "I go to church" as a basis to state that they are closer than one who doesn't. In fact I would say that there is no value in anyone trying to compare their spirituality to anothers. That saying can come across to be a comparison, but the meaning is not to let another keep you distanced from God... its just meant to invoke thought I guess... maybe its not a very effective saying...

Do you hold this same view over donating organs from the deceased to others who need them? Is this the view of the LDS church in general too? Just curious to know. ← I don't. I think the difference is creating life, vs sustaining life... although I know some who are uneasy with the idea of being a donor. I am a donor. The LDS view on the sperm and egg donation, or the organ donor thing?

I agree, however what people think fuels their actions towards others. If someone is basing their action over something they have seen but not understood then it is their duty to understand before they pass judgement. I've heard way to much gossip in wards to show me any enlightnment over others. If holding up the perfect LDS image and keeping up a perfect appearance harms a person or family it it better to let the family suffer or risk doing something to change things and appear as wrong in the public eye? And appearances really can be deceiving. I know from experience and I've taught that to more than a few members. I was judged time and time again, and while i didn't really care and did nothing to change their minds but be myself. They learned from watching, and after talking to them when they decided i wasn't a minion of satan, i asked why they decided to judge first and learn second and none could give me a good answer. ← I agree very much with your statement that it is our responsibility to wait for understanding before we pass judgement. It is also up to us to remember that we take upon us the name of Christ when we are baptized and this means to try and emulate his countenance in all aspects of our lives. Now I really can't preach too much on this, seeing as I have probably the farthest to go to be living this principal out of everyone on this board, but the principal is true. Also, it is appropriate to give council to others regarding being/dressing appropriate for church services. Whether this is quietly mentioning this to the new member or investigator, or mentioning it to someone else (bishop, missionary, fellowshipper) is up to your discernment, but for someone to take offence where none was intended is not good. But to look at someone in a way to say "I disapprove of you" is wrong. I'm not sure how much this saying applies but its great anyway, so here it is. "If you let someone stand between you and the Lord, Who is closer?" The meaning of course is not to let any offence keep you away from the Church.

This is why I think that it is best for us not to participate. This issue reminds me of the churches stance on cremation. We are asked not to choose cremation, not because everything won't work out if we choose to be cremated, but it does not treat the special gift of a body with the appropriate respect. Likewise, to just give away some of our reproductive bits, the Lord has given to us, seems to me to not be responsible. This isn't to say that the giver isn't giving in an appropriate spirit, but that he/she doesn't really have the right to give that which was given to them, to another... Like I said before, there is many children we could bless with the opportunity to be brought up in a good home.

I found this interpretation online, hope it helps. There are two lessons to be learned here. The first is that Ammon laid the groundwork necessary to be able to teach the gospel to King Lamoni. It says that he “caught him with guile.” Now I don’t interpret that to mean that he somehow tricked the King, because the scripture also says that Ammon was “wise, yet harmless.” I think “caught him with guile”, in this context, means that he was intelligent and studied in his approach. In other words, he knew what he was doing. Through his example, he built line upon line and precept upon precept, until Lamoni was asking, even begging Ammon to teach him.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Snow)</div> Well, if you will not accept these rather blunt statements of the Lord's anointed leaders, there is not much more to discuss. Snow, your stance is perfectly fine, as long as you can accept that it is not in harmony with the teachings of the prophets, and as such, not in harmony with the Lord. You need to humble yourself enough to accept the words of the prophets and let go of your pride and "knowledge". I could not believe that you thought that your Elders Quorum Pres would somehow hold precedence over such a power statement made by a member of a stake presidency. Well, I am (well was, I was released about a month ago) an Elders Quorum president, and I can say that the statements of Daisymae are true, not only because they make sense, but because I feel the Spirit of the Lord when I read them, and I don't feel it when I read your retorts. Let me tell you of the dangerousness of your stance. It is by finding fault in our leaders that leads down the road of apostasy. But who am I kidding? Your mind is already made up because of the "reasoning" of your mind. And as such is closed to the workings of the spirit. My hope for you is that you can let go of the finite knowledge of your mind and are able to open it to the infinite wisdom of the teachings of the Lord though his prophets.

Sounds like a study done by Mormons and Jews! :)

Well, I think that it would not be responsible to donate sperm or eggs to a fertility center. I think that there are enough children in this world who need good homes that it would be selfish to spend so much money so that you can have your "own" child... My wife and I have had a fair amount of complications with our pregnancies. We are going to try once more to conceive, but if there are complications again, we have already talked quite seriously about adoption. I think it is safe to say that it is nearly as important a gift to give a child of a loving spiritual household than to bear a child yourself and give the same. Just think how grateful that child will be in there life when they see how lucky they are to have been adopted by you.

Ok, I hear what you're saying... I don't think that you are listening to me though. I don't think that the position of the church has ever been that it was incorrect to not allow African Americans the priesthood, much like Poligamy isn't considered to have been incorrect. The Lord spoke to the prophet when change was necessary and appropriate. You are interpreting Pres. Youngs statements pretty freely. I doubt that you are correct. And btw, how do you know which of the prophets did and didn't go to the Lord about the policy regarding the priesthood? You are completely out of line to speak for The Prophets of The Lord. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Snow")</div> Obviously you haven't read the scriptures if you think that the Lord hasn't changed his instructions to fit the times. If you have read the scriptures, then you surely haven't understood them, because they testify of the way the Lord helps His church grow and develop. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Snow")</div> Ok, then it is my turn to speak slowly. If someone wants to find fault with a Prophet, they will find something that they consider to be a fault and will use that fault to achieve their own purpose. The Pharisees and Sadussees continually found fault with the Savior, where there was no fault to be found. If you are set on finding examples where you think that the church was led astray by a leader, you will find it. Not because its there, but because you are so intent on finding something, that you will create fault where non exist. Now, no prophet has ever claimed to be beyond error, and this is necessary to take into account when studying the prophets lives, but we must have faith in these men as prophets, as they truly do speak with our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and are directly instructed by them. I know this is true.

Here's the problem with your belief... It is factually wrong. Prophets, when they speak on matters of policy and doctrine and the gospel are leading. Prophets say things that sometimes turn out to be wrong. Therefore, if the people believe them, they lead people astray. In order for your belief to become true, you have to define "lead astray" to be a qualified "led astray, " as in, not lead astray much, or not lead astray in any foundational truth necessary for the salvation of man and remdemption of the Saints... something like that. It is not my desire to beat up on God's chosen so I won't enumerate all the times (that I am aware of) when they have been wrong, save one example simply to prove the point. Brigham Young taught that blacks would not receive the priesthood until all non-blacks had received it. The evidence that his mistake had the effect of leading us astray is found in the fact that many, many in the Church, both lay members and leadership believed him - mistakenly. As you know, not all leaders believed him and finally Spencer Kimball corrected the mistake and led us back to the truth, but make no mistake - we, those that believed Brigham Young, were led astray. [Here are the references: Statement by the First Presidency given on August 17, 1951. "The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, 'Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father's rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to.'" On December 3, 1854, Brigham Young said, "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity" (Journal of Discourses 2:143). President Wilford Woodruff noted in his journal that President Young said, "...that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood, until the time of that redemption" (History of Wilford Woodruff, p.351, as printed in The Way to Perfection, p.106).] ← How was President Young leading people astray? He was speaking on the topic as he understood it, as it had been revealed to him. That is all, nothing more, nothing less. The statements of Brigham Young are not in discord with The statements here. People who wish to find fault with the prophets and leaders will always do so. However those who chose to follow and support their leaders and the prophets will reap eternal blessing that cannot otherwise be obtained.

The thing that has always struck me as wonderful about the church, (It could just be because I grew up in the church) is that all you need to know is that the Book of Mormon is true. Everything else hinges on this. If you know it is true, then everything else has to be true and must then fall into place. If it isn't, then you can think what you like.

I know that a lot of people aren't comfortable giving out much info on themselves online, but for those that don't mind sharing a bit about themselves, I thought that this would be kinda fun. 1. Name? (Gender if your name doesn’t make it obvious.) Joseph 2. Age? 26 3. Where born/ Live now? Born in Logan, UT/ Currently in Ogden 4. Who do you live with? Me Wife and me son 5. Any pets? A poor neglected cockatiel named Jack 6. Occupation/ school/ otherwise? Mechanical drafting and design/ Weber state/ Part time vendor 7. Place you’d most like to visit? Europe probably, the old stuff... like Rome and Meditarainian parts. 8. Favorite Book? I hate to be cliche', but Id have to say LOTR. 9. Favorite Movie? MST3K (the movie), Mystery Men, Star Wars (originals) 10. Favorite Band and/or Song Pink Floyd / Fearless 11. Favorite Food/ Drink? I likes it all! 12. Favorite Forum Pal(s)? don't know a lot of people yet... but probably Daizymae :)

That's incorrect. There are people in the Church, more than a few, that accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and while appreciating spiritual truths in the Book of Mormon, do not accept it as true actual history. You may see it as a black and white issue, but others are able to live in a world less defined and rigid. ← No, it is correct. There is no middle ground. Those who view Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon as you suggested are inconsistent with the teachings of the Church, indeed with the statements of Joseph Smith himself. He said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”(emphasis added)

Good, Im glad it did clear it up a bit :) I would not worry about getting your beliefs in line with the church until you know that it is true. If it is true, then you need to change those views that are not in line, and if it isn't true, then you don't really need to worry about it.

If I may interject a couple of points. You say that You believe that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God, but can't accept that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. It is, however impossible to separate the two issues... Either Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God and The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture, true and accurate; or the Book of Mormon is a not true, and Joseph Smith was a fraud. There is no middle ground. I can appreciate that you feel the spirit in the LDS Church, but there is a portion of Gods spirit in many churches. The one thing that makes the LDS church special is that, if it is the One True Church of Christ, then the standards of the church are in line with the standards of God. I had a very good friend on my mission who personally struggled with the churches view on homosexuality. He, himself, had been an active gay man for many, many years. However, he knew the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was the Lord's true and complete church. It took him two years to leave this lifestyle behind him and be baptized, but he was able to do it. And he knew that it was the right thing to do. This was in spite of being a proponent for the gay lifestyle for over many years. I hope that cleared a few things up for you.

That would be pretty much what I am saying

I will assume that you meant after that young man showed repentance by going through a repentance process, because I’m sure you don’t believe the bishop would be ready to submit his name to the First Presidency immediately after discovering his sins. And btw, nice to have you aboard, seamusz. :) ← Thanks. Yes, after repentance has taken place, including a time lapse appropriate to the sin. My understanding is this needs to be in the year+ category... but I'm not too sure about that.

Thanks for the welcome :) To my understanding, before the bar was raised, a young man could still go on a mission even if he had had multiple partners or lived with a girl. The deciding factor used to be a commitment to church principals for an amount of time... no longer so. Like I said before, although time is considered, it is only available if a "prospective missionary" has not grossly overstepped the line. So The limitations that I mentioned were a substantial tightening of the requirements. In my estimation, this new policy allowed those who have made mistakes to still serve, while excluding those who had willfully rebelled... least thats the way I see it.

Hi all, new here, but thought that Id give my two cents. My understanding of the eligability of a young man who has transgressed the laws of morality to serve a mission relys mostly on a few key bits of information. 1. How many occurrences of the offence there were. 2. How many partners there were. 3. The length of time since the last occurrence. 4. The willingness to confess and be forthcoming with the information. My understanding is that a young man who has had only a few incidents of transgression with a single partner may still be able to serve a mission. However once you start talking about multiple partners and steady occurrences of the sin, then they would not be likely to be able to consider the mission. It is quite impossible to put a blanket statement of punishment over any young man who has transgressed the laws of morality. I would say that some young men who have repeatedly transgressed this law while serving in church positions would be worthy of excommunication... although I doubt that a bishop would go as far.